MOHINDER SINGH Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mohinder Singh petitioner prays for quashing of orders, Annexure P. 1 and P. 2, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector S. Y. L. Patiala. Mohinder Singh obtained a decree from the Court of Sub Jud Kharar on September 9, 1982 that the land alloted in village Rora was ancestral property and his father Uttam Singh, respondent No. 1, could not alienate the same. In appeal, on the understanding given by Uttam Singh that he will not alienate the land measuring 11 Killas, which was in cultivating possession of Mohinder Singh and that Mohinder Singh will not interfere with the possession of Uttar Singh in another land, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Out of aforesaid 11 Killas of land 2-3/4 Killas of land comprising in Khasra Nos. 25/12, 19, 22/1 were acquired on September 18, 1985 for S. Y. L. Canal. On March 15, 1986, an application was filed by Mohinder Singh before the Land Acquisition Collector praying for the compensation of the land acquired to be paid to him or in the alternative to refer the dispute to the District Judge. The Land Acquisition Collector passed order. Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, first granting 2/3rd of compensation and thereafter the remaining 1/3rd compensation to Uttam Singh. These are two orders under challenge. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of Uttam Singh and Sukhvinder Singh son of Uttam Singh. The Land Acquisition Collector is represented. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Shri Lakhinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments produced copy of the application which was moved by Mohinder Singh before the Land Acquisition Collector and is dated March 15, 1986. His contention is that the dispute having been raised to the amount of compensation to be fixed in the award to be made by the Land Acquisition Collector and its disbursement, it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge. The Land Acquisition Collector was not competent to decide the objections application summarily as has been done vide orders, Annexures P. 1 and P. 2. I have given due consideration to this argument and I find merit therein. Vide order, Annexure P. 1, the Land Acquisition Collector prima facie coming to the conclusion that Mohinder Singh at the most could dispute compensation to the extent of 1/3rd of the land acquired ordered that 2/3rd of the compensation be paid to Uttam Singh and adjourned the proceedings to May 25, 1986. On that day Mohinder Singh did not put in appearance nor he produced any evidence. Thus he ordered that remaining 1/3rd of the compensation be paid to Uttam Singh who was recorded in the Jamabandi as being in cultivating possession of the land acquired. When the application was filed, the Land Acquisition Collector had not announced the award determining compensation for the land acquired which was done on 19th March, 1986 (Award No. 69/K-SYL). No doubt, when the application was filed by Mohinder Singh the award had not been announced. However, it is clear that at the time the award was announced, application of Mohinder Singh was already before the Land Acquisition Collector wherein a claim was made to the compensation for the acquired land by disbursement or in the alternative to refer the case to the District Judge for determination. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under :

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that when amount of compensation has been settled and a dispute arises to the apportionment, the Collector is to refer such a dispute to the decision of the Court. This course was not adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector on the simple ground that on the adjourned date of hearing, i. e. May 22, 1986, Moninder Singh did not put in appearance nor he led any evidence. As a matter of fact, Land Acquisition Collector was not called upon to determine the dispute between the person claiming apportionment of the compensation for the land acquired. It was incumbent upon him to refer the dispute to the Court. Thus quashing the orders, Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, a direction is given to the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs in this petition.