OM PARKASH Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner alleging himself as one of the Co -owner with Respondent No. 4, who are both real brothers has filed this writ petition challenging Award No. 4 LA 83 -84/ -536 -37 dated October 10, 1983 made under the land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter called the Act) made by respondent No: 1 with a further prayer of quashing the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications of land comprised in khasra No. 17. situated at village Narwal Bala in the Jammu District measuring 1l kanals. It is alleged by the petitioner that he lives separately from respondent No. 4 and have a separate ration card though they are co -owners in the equal share of the land in dispute. He come to know about the acquisition of the land on October 11,1984, about which an award has been made exclusively in favour of respondent No: 4, who is taking steps to withdraw the entire amount of the award. The Notification under section 4 of the Act has been attacked on the ground that the same was not published in the manner prescribed. It was neither affixed at any place in the locality where the subject matter is situated nor it was caused to be known by the beat of the drum or through panchayat or the patwari. It is further alleged that no notice under section 6 and 9 of of the Act were served on the petitioner. No notice of award under section 12 of the Act was also served on the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 have contested the petition in the counter and reply affidavit filed by respondent 1 and 2, it has been categorically stated on affidavit by the collector (Assistant commissioner Revenue) Respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 4 was in exclusive possession of the land acquired since prior to kharif 1971 till the date of acquisition, a part of which was earlier sold by him of 4 kanals to different persons from survey No. 17. The petitioner never agitated against the said sale deeds, hence he has no locus -standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted by him that all the necessary formalities regarding notification under section 4 of the Act have been observed, since the petitioner does not fall within the category of interested persons, hence no notice was required to be served on him personally under section 6 and 9 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter filed the rejoinder to the objections filed on behalf of the respondents showing that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are both in possession of the land ploughing about half of the land each. The name of the petitioner has erroneously been ommitted from the Girdwari for Rabi 1978. Alongwith the rejoinder affidavits of Om Parkash. Sh. Fateh Hussain. Naib Sarpanch, Panchayat Chhani Himmat and Shiv Ram Chowkidar have also been filed demonstrating that no notification for the acquisition of the land was done by aftxing the same at any place in the village Narwal Bala nor anybody by beat of drum notify the same In the locality. As directed by this court, the learned Government Advocate placed before this court the record relating to acquisition proceedings.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record containing the acquisition proceedings right from issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the acquisition of land measuring 11 kanals comprised in khasra No. 17 situated at village Narwal Bala was issued by the office of Respondent No: I/RD of 1983 dated 2 -4 -1983 On perusal it further transpires that the said notifications contains report of patwari duly signed dated April 6, 1983 showing that the copy of the notification was affixed in the village where the land has been acquired and also it contains a report about beat drum, i.e., (Manhadi). "It also contains an endorsement of the same date that Krishan Dutt was also informed, of this notice. The report of the patwari further indicates that it has been widely published and duly notified according to the provisions of section 4 of the Act. learned counsel for the petitioner tried to pursuade me by showing the revenue entires that the Khasra No, in dispute is entered in 1973 in the ownership of Krishan Dutt and Om Parkash sons of Dheru Brahmin and in Kharif 1976 it also appears that he held 11 kanals in his Khud Kashat as well as on the basis of affidavits with the rejoinder of Chowkidar and Naib Sarpanch showing that the petitioner was an interested party and in the absence of any notice to him and publication of the notice in accordance with law the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside. It is pertinent to note that these affidavits referred to above have been filed after the counter by respondents. Moreover, Chowkidar no -where states whether in1983 on the relevant date he was there nor Naib Sarpanch states that on the basis of his record he refutes the allegation of notification, In view of this it is difficult to rely on the affidavits of chowkidar and Naib -Sarpench to hold against the record regarding necessary formalities of the notification under section 4 of the Act narrated above, In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he being the co -owner is an interested person to challenge the award and got personal notice as required under section 4, 6 and 9 of the Act. In support of his contention on the illegality of notice under section 4 of the Act, he placed his reliance on reported case of this Court in 1981 J&K L, R. 155 (Vishwa Nath Vs. Collector and ors). His lordship in this case found that the formalities of section 4 of the Act were not complied. In the instant case on perusal of the record I find that there is a valid notification under section 4 of the Act, nothing substantial has been pointed out to disbelieve the report of. patwari about affixation and the beat of drum and information to local panchayat. Thus I hold that all the limbs and requirements of section 4 of the Act stands complied with,

(3.) ADVERTING to the point of co -ownership and the right of the petitioner to challenge on that ground the award which has become final under section 12 of the Act. firstly it is also pertinent that only one entry of Kharif 1976 has been shown in the possession column which is merely a stray entry and it is neither found earlier nor thereafter till the acquisition proceedings finalised. Even if the petitioner is found as one of the co -owner when the notification stands on all requirement and even if personal notice on the co -owner is served, it is sufficient notice to the other, it is not necessary to serve the other co -owner personally. Learned counsel for the respondents for this proposition placed their reliance on A. I. R. 1975 Madras 345 (Ghousia Begum, appellant v/s, The union Territory of Pondicherry, Respondent) on a perusal of the record it is also found that notices under section 6 and 9 of the Act have also been served on respondent No. 4. as required under law as well as the notification under section 6 of the Act has been duly issued vide Notification No, 129 of 1983 dated 17. 5. 1983. Thus on over -all consideration it has been held that all the requirements of the Act about notification u/s 4, 6 and 9 of the Act, stood fully complied with. There is no substance in the present writ petition In so far as the right of the petitioner to claim compensation being a co -owner along with Respondent No: 4 the same may be agitated before the appropriate forum.