ANGREZ SINGH Vs. CHAMAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land, measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas, 13 kanals 14 marlas and 52 kanals and 16 marlas in Khasra Nos. 436 min, 439 min, 540 min respectively situate at village Channi Himat, Tehsil and District Jammu, is said to have been acquired by the Collector-Respondent for construction of a Housing Colony by the State of J. and K. Various owners of the said land were paid compensation and the compensation was held payable to the petitioner also under the Award passed by the Collector. The Petitioner's share was Rs. 985.71 and Rs. 79,580/- totalling to Rs. 80,565.71. After passing of the Award, it appears that the payment was not paid to the petitioner under the orders of Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner before whom other co-sharers seem to have made application disputing the claim of the petitioner. The Collector has not made any reference to the Civil Court under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act nor has he made any reference under S.31 of the Land Acquisition Act before the passing of the Award.

(2.) It is contended by the Collector that since the claim of the Petitioner was disputed, therefore, compensation was not paid to him.

(3.) During the course of arguments learned counsel for the Collector has produced file No. 15 instituted on 17-3-1982 before the Collector. This file contains application of Balwant Singh, Rattan Singh, Kanwal Singh, who are some of the persons to whom compensation was made. On 17-3-1982, it appears that the Collector was asked that revision was being filed against mutation No. 385, therefore, payment of compensation be stayed in favour of the petitioner. By another application dt. 7-4-1982, it is stated that as the proceedings against mutation No. 385 are taken before the Director, Land Records, the payment in favour of the petitioner be stopped. A stay order issued by the Director Land Records, in revision against mutation No. 385, reveals that status quo was ordered to be maintained. Another application dated 16-6-1983 appears to have been made before the Collector by Balwant Singh, Krishan Singh and Kanwal Singh to the effect that Mutation in respect of Mangoo, predecessor-in-interest of parties, is filed, compensation should not be paid to the petitioner. Yet another application dated 21-12-1982, was made by Balwant Singh and others before the Collector asking him not to make the payment of compensation. The Divisional Commissioner appears to have issued an order to the Collector not to make payment of compensation till the disposal of the case. This order is said to have been made on Dec. 21,1982, because the Collector dismissed the plea of Balwant Singh and ordered payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner on the condition that if the Mutation order is set aside, the amount to the petitioner shall be refunded by him.