SAMPURAN KAUR Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 237 of the Constitution of India. The peti-tioners were the owners of land and buildings comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 317 and 317/A Khasra Nos. 1766, 2090/1802, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1823, 2101/1798, 1814, 18.17 and 1818 measuring 6 bighas 12 biswas situate in village Bair-ki-Ser Pargana Sumna Basal, Tehsil Solan, District Ma-hasu- A notification was issued acquiring tile aforesaid lajid for industrial estate a public purpose. By the aforesaid notification the Collector Mahasu was empowered to hear the objections of the interested persons. The award was, however, made by the Magistrate first class Solan exercising the powers of Land Acquisition Collector on 26-2-1960. On 6-7-1960 the petitioners submitted a petition to the aforesaid Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the Court as the award was not acceptable to them. This petition was rejected on the ground that a claim petition was not filed within 15 days of the issue of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'. The gravamen of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate first class Solan was not duly empowered to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act and that he was in error in rejecting the petition for reference. The petitioners' contention is that the petition for reference was made within the prescribed period of limitation and that in any case it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Collector to forward it to the Court. The petitioner have also attack ed the validity of the notice issued under Section 9 and of the notification issued under Section 17 of the Act but it is not necessary to detail the grounds of attack as, the petition was admitted with a view to examine the legality of the order dated 6-7-1960, only.

(2.) The respondents to the petition are the Collector Land Acquisition "Solan, Himachal Pradesh Administration through Collector Mahasu and the Union of India. It has, however, been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no relief is desired by them against the respondents, Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The main grounds on which the petition has been opposed are firstly that it is not maintainable as an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners and they have not availed ot the same, secondly that the Magistrate first class Solan had been duly notified as the Land Acquisition Collector for acquiring inter alia the aforesaid land and thirdly that the petitioners did not prefer their claim in response to the notice under Section 9 of the Act within the time prescribed and the Land Acquisition Collector was perfectly justified in rejecting the petition for reference and in not making a reference to the Court.