BRIJ NANDAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brij Nandan and others petitioners owned some land jointly with other proprietors situated in Shamlat Patti Baldev, Faridabad. The land was acquired in 1971. After the Collector pronounced the award the petitioners being unsatisfied moved an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for making reference to the Civil Court. Radhey Shyam was a tenant on the joint land. He had also moved such an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was, lowever, referred to the District Judge, and ultimately the matter was decided by this Court in R.F.A. No. 1750 of 1977 decided on May 2, 1979. The market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 16/- per square yard. Since application of the petitioners was not referred to the District Judge by the Collector, they moved this Court by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The stand of the Land Acquisition Collector in the written statement filed is that the application filed on behalf of the present petitioners was declined by the Collector as they failed to prove that they had any share in the land and this order was communicated to the petitioners on 23rd August, 1977. In the written statement, preference has also been made to the case of Radhey Shyam. The order of the Collector was not challenged by the petitioner and it is too late to do so.

(2.) When an application is filed before the Land Acquisition Collector by an owner or purporting to be an owner of the land acquired, it is the duty of the Collector to refer the same to the District Judge for decision. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which authorises the Collector to hold an enquiry as to the rights of the parties. Thus the order passed by the Collector declining the application of the petitioners filed-under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was obviously a nullity passed without jurisdiction and it is non est. It can not stand in the way of the petitioners to seek settlement of the dispute regarding the price of the acquired land in accordance with law i.e. by reference to the District Judge. The delay in the circumstances stated above is of no consequence. When the State has acquired land all the landowners are entitled to be compensated for their land acquired. On this technical objection, relief which is due to the petitioners, cannot be denied.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to refer the application of the petitioners, filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge for decision according to law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.