SHYAM LAL BHEEL Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2004 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer ("the SDO", in short) had withdrawn the conversion order dated 25.11.2000, aggrieved by the subsequent reduction in the compensation amount for the acquired land, aggrieved by the final award dated 23.10.2004, the petitioners have sought the refuge of this Court.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1, Shyam Lal Bheel and petitioner No. 2, Kailash Meena, owned land in Khasra No. 223, situated in village Tharol, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. Out of this land, 6 biswa of land belonging to petitioner No. 1 was converted, vide order dated 25.11.2000 from agricultural to residential usage by the SDO. But, in order to construct a canal through the area, vide Notification dated 17.10.2002, the State Government proposed to acquire the said land under the Land Acquisition Act. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published in the newspaper dated 21.10.2002. According to the Notification, six biswa of land belonging to petitioner No. 1 and six biswa of land belonging to petitioner No. 2 were also included in the acquisition proceedings. On 01.04.2003, the SDO invited objections from the land owners of Khasra No. 233 situated in village Tharol. Immediately, on 17.04.2003, the petitioners filed their objections before the learned SDO. Meanwhile, on 21.04.2003, the learned SDO passed an order converting the use of land, belonging to petitioner No. 2 in Khasra No. 223, from agriculture to residential purpose. Thus, as on 21.04.2003, a total of twelve biswas belonging to the petitioners i.e., six biswas belonging to each of them was changed to "residential purpose". After completion of the acquisition proceedings, on 18.08.2003, the learned SDO proposed an award in favour of the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 23,77,643/-. Thereafter, he sent the same for approval by the Collector. Since the petitioners were not being granted compensation, on 11.02.2004 they sent a legal notice to the Land Acquisition Officer. Immediately, on 20.02.2004, the Land Acquisition Officer informed the petitioners that their award has been sent to the Collector for his approval. He further informed the petitioners that since a mistake had occurred in the 1 calculation of the compensation amount, the learned Acquisition Officer had requested the Collector not to approve the award. The mistake that was discovered was that the land belonging to petitioner No. 1, Shyam Lal Meena was converted from agriculture to residential purpose on 25.11.2000, i.e., s prior to the acquisition proceeding, but the land belonging to petitioner No. 2, Shri Kailash Meena was converted on 21.04.2003 i.e., much after the acquisition proceedings had started. However, notwithstanding this fact, inadvertently, the land belonging to petitioner No. 2 was treated as residential land, whereas it could not be so treated. For, the land was converted for 10 residential purposes Only after the acquisition proceeding had started. Aggrieved by this the petitioners moved a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3446/04. Vide judgment dated 27.05.2004, this Court directed the Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before approving or passing the final award. After 15 affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, vide award dated 19.07.2004, the learned Collector reduced the compensation from Rs. 23,77,097/- to Rs. 13,78,773/-. The said amount was reduced on the ground that in fact only six biswa of land, that belonging to petitioner No. 1, had been converted prior to the acquisition proceedings. Thus, only petitioner No. 1 20 was entitled to have the compensation calculated on the basis that the land was used for residential purposes. However, petitioner No. 2 was not so entitled. The said award was further sent for the approval by the Collector. However, surprisingly vide order dated 19.10.2004 without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 1, the learned SDO withdrew the 25 conversion order passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 25.11.2000. The learned SDO passed the said order ostensibly on the ground-that petitioner No.1 had failed to raise the construction on the land as required by the conversion order. Moreover, the petitioner No. 1 had gotten the land converted in order to receive an exorbitant rate of compensation. On the 3C same day, i.e., 19.10.2004 without giving an opportunity of hearing, the SDO changed the compensation award and further reduced the compensation from Rs. 13,78,773/- to merely Rs. 48,510.00 for each of the petitioners treating total twelve biswas of land as agricultural land. On 19.10.2004 itself, the learned SDO sent the said award for further approval to the Collector. 3' Surprisingly, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, a final award was passed on 23.10.2004 as reduced by the learned SDO. Since the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2004 whereby the conversion order 25.11.2000 has been withdrawn and aggrieved by the final award of the compensation dated 23.10.2004, they have knocked at the 4 doors of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the twin reasons given by the learned SDO for withdrawing the conversion order dated 25.11.2000 are legally unsustainable. For, the land was converted on 25.11.2000 i.e., two years prior to the 4 commencing of the acquisition proceedings. According to the conversion order, petitioner No. 1 was required to start his construction within a period of two years. However, before the said period of two years could be over, the notification under Sec. 4 was published on 21.10.2002. Once the land became the subject-matter of acquisition, obviously, the petitioner No. 1 s could not raise his construction. Therefore, the petitioner had a legal justification for not raising the construction. Despite the existence of a valid jurisdiction, conversion order has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had failed to raise the construction. Secondly, in the year 2000, i.e., two years prior to the commencement of the acquisition, the petitioner could not have imagined that the land would be acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of canal after two years. Hence, the reasoning given by the learned SDO that petitioner No. 1 had gotten his land converted in order to receive an exorbitant compensation is logically flawed. Thirdly, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the learned SDO reduced the compensation award from almost Rs. 14 lacs to merely Rs. 48,000.00. Therefore, the award as proposed by the learned SDO on 19.10.2004 is violative of the principles of natural justice. Even the final award, dated 23.10.2004, has been passed by the Collector behind the petitioners' back. Hence the said award is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. Thus, the impugned order and the award are violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.