HARKISHAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1870 to 1872 and 1874 to 1881 of 1979 as the questions of law and fact arising in these revisions are identical.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points in dispute, the facts as given in Civil Revision No. 1870 of 1979 may be briefly mentioned. After the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called the Act), an award was announced determining the amount of compensation with regard to the various land-owners. The present petitioners in all these revision petitions filed their applications under Section 18 of the Act, requesting the Collector to make a reference to the District Court relating to the three questions raised by the landowner, namely enhancement of compensation, enhancement of solatium and the interest. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and Land Acquisition Collector, without notice to the petitioners and without providing an opportunity to them referred only one out of the three questions namely regarding interest for determination by the District Court. Regarding the amount of compensation as claimed by the petitioners, the Collector expressed the opinion that the amount of compensation as assessed by him was in accordance with the facts established and did not need any enhancement. Regarding the question of solatium, the Collector was of the opinion that appropriate amount had been awarded and no case was made out for reference to the Court. The third question regarding interest was, however, referred to the District Court. The land-owner in these 11 revision petitions have challenged the legality and validity of this order which was passed in all the applications.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State has not much to say on the merits of the impugned order. It is not disputed that the Collector did not issue any notice to any of the petitioners nor provided any opportunity to them to be heard before passing the impugned order by which he declined to refer two out of the three questions for determination by the District Court. Obviously, in such a situation, these orders have to be held as nullity. Even on merits, once petitions are filed by land-owners concerned under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhanced compensation, the Collector has no jurisdiction to withhold the reference on the basis of his opinion on merits of the contentions raised by the landowners. The landowners while making petitions under Section 18 of the Act, challenged the award of the Collector on merits and it is not for the Collector to sit as a Judge in his own cause and refuse to make reference. Reference may be made to Shrimati Kako Bai v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar, 1956 58 PunLR 397