ISHWAR DAS KAUSHESH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It arises under the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of land, measuring 5341 square yards situated on the Hospital Round at Nahan and of a building erected thereupon. On 19-4-1955, through notification No. R. 60-65/55, the Revenue Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the above land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, i.e. for the Teachers' Training School, Nahan. Anyone interested in objecting to the acquisition of the above land was required to file his objections in writing to Collector of Sirmur district within 30 days. On 4-5-1955 another notification, No. R-60-65/ 55, was issued by the Revenue Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government, purporting to be under section 6, read with Section 17(1) and 17(4), of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein it was stated that the land was required to be taken urgently for a public purpose, namely Teachers' Training School at Nahan, and the Collector of Sirmur was directed to take order for the acquisition of the said land. Notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued by the Collector Land Acquisition, Sirmur, calling for objections by 23-5-55. No objections were filed. The petitioner wrote a letter, dated 8-5-1955, to the Collector, stating that he had "no particular point to represent" and adding that he was prepared to hand over possession of the land and the house immediately, without claiming additional compensation for urgent acquisition. The petitioner claims that on 12-5-55, in obedience to an order issued by the Collector Land Acquisition to the Tehsildar of Nahan, he handed over possession of the land as well as of the building, standing thereupon, to the Headmaster, Government Teachers' Training School, Nahan. The petitioner's contention is that after the delivery of possession to the respondents all rights of ownership vested in them and they, nevertheless, have not paid him the amount of compensation aggregating to Rs. 67,953/14/6, referred to in letter No. 19-Acq. SRA-DC/55-517 dated 19-5-1955, sent by the Collector Land Acquisition, Sirmur, to the Deputy Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Simla 4. Instead of paying the compensation amount to the petitioner, the Himachal Pradesh Government, on 8-9-1955, issued notification No. R. 60-65/55, purporting to cancel the earlier notifications of 19-4-1955 and 4-5-1955, on the ground that the land in question was no longer required, and accordingly the acquisition proceedings were withdrawn. The petitioner contends that after delivery of possession it was not open to the respondent No. 1 (State of Himachal Pradesh) to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. It is urged that the respondents are bound to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. to pay the full amount of the compensation to the petitioner, along with interest upto date of payment. Hence, this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to issue an appropriate writ to the respondent No. 1, directing it to discharge its functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, to withdraw the notification dated 8-9-1955 and to pay the petitioner the full amount of compensation, awarded along with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

(3.) The petition is opposed by both the respondents on identical grounds. While admitting that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question, the respondents deny that the building is worth Rs. 50,000/-, as stated in para 1 of the petition. The issue of the notifications, dated 19-4-1955 and 4-5-1955, is admitted, but the respondents contend that there was, in fact, no urgency. It is stated that the petitioner, by abusing his official position, as Superintendent, Revenue Department, Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, fraudulently and in conspiracy with some officials, hurried the proceedings with a view to thrust his property on the Government for an unconscionable price. It is further stated that the petitioner himself approached the Deputy Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, and requested him to acquire the property in question by giving him to understand that the cost would not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents contend that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act have no applicability at all and, therefore, the notification of 4-51955, was ultra vires and ineffective. It is further pleaded that the alleged delivery of possession to the Education Department on 12-5-1955 would not bind the respondents as it was manoeuvred by the petitioner himself and went against the mandatory provisions of law. The respondent No. 1 goes on to state that when it realised the fraud perpetrated upon it by the petitioner, in collusion with some officials, they cancelled the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were ultra vires and illegal. This step they took in order to prevent a fraud on the public revenues. Thus the respondents deny all liability to pay anything to the petitioner. Further it was stated that the matter cannot be decided in these summary and; extraordinary proceedings, but only by way of regular suit. The respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit of Shri M. C. Saraswati, Deputy Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh. A replication, accompanied by an affidavit, has been filed by the petitioner.