MADHO RAM Vs. COLLECTOR BARAMULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus directing the Collector of Baramulla to tender the amount of compensation awarded to them, under the Land Acquisition Act and also to retrain him from altering the award already made by him. The petitioners aver that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken for compulsory acquisition of their land for the purpose of the construction of an approach road to the New Sopore Bridge. The land acquisition proceeding are said to have culminated in an award made by the respondent on 15th June 1960. As the amount of compensation exceeded Rs.5000, the award was forwarded by the respondent to the Revenue Minister as required by Rule 52 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act. The Revenue Minister is alleged to have approved the award, by his order dated 24th December I960. In spite of this the respondent is alleged to, have refrained from tendering the amount of compensation due to the petitioners according to the award. They have, therefore, approached this Court for the aforesaid writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent admits that he was the Land Acquisition Collector who inquired into the claim of the petitioners for compensation in respect of the land sought to be compulsorily acquired. But he points that he did not make any award under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. All that he did was to send up his proposal to the Revenue Minister in the form of a draft award. The final award as required by S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding compensation is yet to be made The petitioners have therefore no manner of right to ask for the writ they have now sought. It is further stated in the affidavit of the respondent that before he could finalise the award, announce it, file it and communicate it under S 12 of the Act, the Revenue Minister had directed him to check up and verify with the Director of Agriculture the correct amount of compensation payable for fruit trees. An award is to be made by him only after this is done and there can, therefore, be no question of paying any compensation to the petitioners at present, that is to say, even before an award under S. 11 comes into being.

(3.) THE main facts are not in dispute. The point in dispute is as to whether the respondent has already made an award under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that an award has already been made under S. 11 and that, therefore, the respondent is bound to tender the amount of compensation to the petitioners according to that award. Strong reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners on an attested copy of an order dated 24 -12 -60 purporting to convey to the respondent the approval of the Revenue Minister to the award under Rule 52 of the Land Acquisition Rules. The order reads: -