NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Niranjan Singh has prayed for a writ of mandamus in the names of the State of Punjab and the Collector, respondents, to pay the balance of the compensation money amounting to Rs. 14150/- together with interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum with effect from the 25th of September, 1963, till the date of the payment.

(2.) The facts alleged are these. The Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Patiala, respondent No. 2 under Section 32-H of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declared 49.80 Standard Acres of land belonging to the petitioner as surplus in the year 1961. The Tehsildar Patiala, in pursuance of the above order took possession of the surplus area and also allotted it to the displaced persons somewhere in the year 1962. The compensation statement in form IX, Part B under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) issued by Respondent No. 2 fixed the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner as Rs. 16659.78 P. This amount of compensation according to the provisions of Section 32-H of the Act was payable either in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds as prescribed in rules 24-B and 24-C of the rules. The petitioner in accordance with the orders of the Collector, Patiala, dated the 23rd September, 1963, was paid Rs. 2509/- in cash. The petitioner applied to the Collector for the issue of the bonds in accordance with the rules regarding the balance of the amount of compensation payable to him. Respondent No. 2, informed him that the State Government, Respondent No. 1, had not issued any instructions for the issue of such bonds and as such no further action could be taken in the matter. The petitioner moved the Under Secretary to Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Punjab, on the 15th of April, 1964, for proper relief but he was advised to contact in future the Deputy Commissioner of Patiala. In spite of his repeated efforts nothing has come out of his representation to the Government. He finally approached Respondent No. 2 on 28th April, 1965, who returned his application with the remarks, "returned to the applicant". He, however, certified that Rs. 16659/- were payable to the petitioner as compensation out of which Rs. 2509.78 P. had been paid in cash. It was also stated that instructions regarding the payment of the remaining amount had not been received from the Government annexures ('D' and 'E'). The petitioner alleges that although 4 years had passed when Respondent No. 1 took possession of the surplus area of land but be had not been paid the balance of amount of compensation in spite of his repeated efforts.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in spite of service did not care to put in their written statements with the result that the proceedings were held ex parte against them. It is evident from annexures 'D' and 'E' that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the land declared surplus was Rs. 16659/- out of which Rs. 2509.78 P. had been paid and that the balance could not be paid for want of instructions from Respondent No. 1. Rule 24-B of the rules provided that 25 per cent of the amount of provisional compensation shall be paid in cash and the remaining amount of compensation, if any, worked out after completing Part B of the compensation statement shall be paid in bonds. It also lays down that any amount which cannot be covered by bonds shall be paid in cash. Thus, it is clear that according to law, Respondent No. 1 was bound to pay the amount of compensation in cash and also in bonds and that if any amount which could not be covered by bonds was to be paid in cash. Respondents have not cared to fulfil this part of their obligation. The Supreme Court in Messrs Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa and others, 1962 AIR(SC) 1320 laid down that :-