KHAZANA RAM Vs. LAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, in Land Reference Petition No. 4-NS/4 of 1994 and the order passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, in Case No. 20/98, titled : Khajana Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, Annexures P-10 and P-11 to the writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the learned District Judge to entertain the Reference Petition, Annexure P-9 with the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners allege that they are the land-owners of land at Darlaghat which was acquired by respondent No. 1 for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They approached the Collector and requested that Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") be sent to the Court of the learned District Judge for redetermination of the compensation as they were not satisfied with the amount which had been granted to them. The learned District Judge, vide his impugned judgment, entertained the Reference Petition and framed three issues; namely : (a) Whether there are grounds for the enhancement of the compensation, if so, how much? OPP. (b) Whether the petition is within limitation ? OPP. (c) Relief. 2A. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were taken up together for decision. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents before the Reference Court on the maintainability of the reference petition not being in accordance with law as the necessary particulars as required under Section 19 of the Act had not been sent along with the Reference Petition to the learned District Judge. The contention was that the particulars required under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had not been furnished. The learned District Judge while disposing of the Reference Petition, recorded the evidence of the petitioners on the question of the value of the land etc., but did not say anything regarding the merit of the claim of the petitioners. The learned Court upheld the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents that the reference is not in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. While disposing of the Reference Petition, he observes in para 14 as under :- "My work is hampered in absence of the aforesaid proper information. On the other hand, respondent made available copy of the award to this Court. The Award reveals that it was passed by the Collector under Section 1 1(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and in view of the compromise between the interesting parties i.e. land-owners and the company for which the land was acquired by learned Collector a settled amount of Rs. 62,000/- per bighas of the cultivated land and Rs. 19,000/- per bighas of the uncultivated land inclusive of solatium etc. was settled. Compensation as per the settled rale was paid to the petitioners. Now petitioners claim before me that they received the amount under protest. However, reference so made is not accompanied by relevant information and material as required under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, so I may not in a position to decide the controversy whether the petitioners were consenting party to the award and whether they received the amount with or without protest."

(3.) The entire matter was disposed of with the direction to the Collector that he should re-consider the matter and if he feels, after going through the record that the petitioners were not consenting parties to the award he may make the reference to the Court and while doing so he should keep in mind the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. He further directed the Collector to specifically determine whether the compensation was received by the petitioners with or without protest. This is again accompanied by an observation that if the Collector feels that it is with consent, a reference may not be competent. By his order dated 30th June, 1999, the Land Acquisition Collector reproduces the direction issued by the learned District Judge and goes into a very detailed inquiry holding that the petitioners were consenting parties to the award, and therefore, dismisses the application under Section 18. The record also reveals that he made some kind of ex parte enquiry by personally visiting the other villages where lands had been acquired to ascertain as to whether they were consenting parties to the award.