ANANT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of twelve C.R. Nos. 2271 to 2279 and 2315 to 2317 of 1988, as the question involved is common in all these cases. Vide notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) dated 7th May, 1977, land of three villages was acquired for the purpose of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector gave different awards, though the market price given was the same in all the awards. The award in the case of present petitioners by the Land Acquisition Collector was given on 22nd July, 1977. Another award was given in a separate case on 21st December, 1976 and 1Ith January, 1977, whereby the land was acquired under the same notification as in the present cases. Against these two awards, reference was sought by the claimants u/s 18 of the Act. The amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 16,000/- per acre as a result of the references. The claimants in those cases also filed RFA No. 1328/83 in this court which was decided on 23rd July, 1986, and the amount of compensation was further enhanced to Rs. 16,300/- per acre. After the decision of the High Court on 23rd July, 1986, the present petitioners moved separate applications u/s 28-A of the Act as amended, within three months of the order of the High Court. According to the petitioners, since their land was also acquired under the same notification u/s 4 of the Act, viz., dated 7th May, 1977, they were also entitled to enhanced compensation as determined by this Court in the abovesaid Regular First Appeal filed on behalf of other claimants whose land was also acquired under the same notification, and, therefore, the amount of compensation payable to them be re-determined on that basis. The said applications were resisted on behalf of the State. The learned Land Acquisition Collector took the view that since the award in which the reference was made u/s 18 and then the matter was taken to this Court vide above-mentioned Regular First Appeal was riot the same, the petitioners were not entitled to claim any benefit of their re-determined price as awarded by this court vide judgment dated 23rd July, 1986.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly under notification dated 7th May, 1977, the land of three villages was acquired. Though different awards were given by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act, since the land acquired was under one notification the petitioners were entitled to re-determination of the amount of compensation as contemplated by Section 28-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel even if the awards made by the Collector u/s 11 were different, it will make no difference because the benefit u/s 28-A of the Act has been given to the persons interested in all other lands covered by the same notification u/s 4 of the Act. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was wholly wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, he cited Justice D.K. Mahajan v. Union of India 1987 Pun LJ 202, Jasmel Kaur v. Union of India 1987 Pun LJ 655, Kartara v. State of Punjab 1987 Pun LJ 464 and Maj Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1989) 1 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 48. It was further submitted that the Collector himself could not decide the dispute as he was himself a party thereto and in case he was unable to decide he should have referred the matter u/s 18 of the Act to the District Judge. In support of this contention, reference was made to Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Land Acquisition Collector (1987)1 Land LR 446. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that u/s 28-A of the Act, the benefit could be given only to the claimants whose land was acquired and the same award was given by the Collector. If the awards given by the Land Acquisition Collector were different though the land was acquired by the same notification, the claimant will not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of S.28-A.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar I am of the considered view that the approach of the learned Land Acquisition Collector in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived, and he acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. Section 28-A of , the Act reads as follows :-