ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPALITY Vs. JAGIRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 32 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition Act reads ;

(2.) FOR purposes of carrying out the object of these sub -sections, provision has been made in the rules called the Land Acquisition Rules framed under the Act. Rule 34 reads: - "Compensation in form of land in lieu of cash, in all cases an award of cash compensation must be made. It, however, not frequently happens that either a the person from whom the land is being acquired, asks that Government land no longer required for public purposes may be given to him in lieu of cash compensation or b it would be convenient to Government to award compensation in the from of land instead of cash. This latter case would occur chiefly when a new cut was being made on a canal and the land under the old cut was no longer required. All land no longer required must, however, be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 83 below. It follows, firstly, that no land to which any person has any claim under that paragraph can be awarded to other persons an compensation for land acquired from them, and secondly, that no departmental officer can by private negotiation or otherwise acquire land for a public purpose and give in exchange for it other land no longer required. All land not required must be handed over to the Collector. If it is proposed by any departmental officer to relinquish land and to acquire other land in the neighborhood, he must treat the two transactions as entirely separate. All he can do is to hand over the land to Collector and represent to him that if possible, the land should be given as compensation for the other land to be acquired, If the Acquiring officer, after having satisfied himself that no person has any claim to the land, proposes to award it as compensation he will not award cash compensation as usual, but will record in the award and in the award statement A vide paragraph 70, a note to the effect that it is proposed to give land in lieu of cash and the file close. Treatment of such cases. -The question of the land to be awarded will then be dealt with in a separate file : -

(3.) A combined reading of these provisions would make it amply clear that, instead of awarding the money compensation, the collector may grant land in exchange for the land acquired. But he can do so only after he has made sure that the land given in exchange belongs to the Government or, to the indenting department, as the case may be. He cannot award in exchange land to which any person has any claim If he does so, that constitutes a clear contravention of the provisions mentioned above. In the present case, the Municipality was the indenting department. The case of the plaintiff is that the property granted in exchange for the land acquired does not belong to the Municipality. It is an evacuee property. The Collector has not even cared to see if it really belonged to the Municipality. There is a contravention of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The award is therefore, vitiated. Thus, the plaintiff complains of the contravention of the Act and the rules made thereunder in the matter of awarding compensation and not raise any controversy about the adequacy of the compensation. Accordingly I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute touches compensation and, as such, the plaintiffs remedy lay under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that remedy by way of a suit was barred. The lower court has rightly decided issue No. 1 against the defendants and held that the present suit is cognizable by the civil court.