BRIG GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction for payment of compensation in respect of land which was taken possession of by the Rajasthan Canal Project Department for construction of Rig bunds and syphons. The petitioner has sought for payment of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 19-12-1980 Anx. 4 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was in active service and behind his back the petitioner's land was taken possession of without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner represented the state authorities. Ultimately an application was moved before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 19-12-80 determined the amount of compensation to the time of Rs. 2,28,220/ -. As per the petitioner's case his 34 Bighas land was taken possession of and in exchange of that land initially in 1976 24 Bighas land was given and thereafter in 1980 13 Bigha more land was given. In this way 37 Bigha land was given in exchange to the petitioner. The petitioner's claim was in respect of crop compensation to which he was entitled had he been delivered the possession of land in exchange on the date of taking possession of land of the petitioner. It may further be stated that the Government also sanctioned payment of Rs. 2. 28,220/- as is recited in Ex. 5 letter of Office Superintendent addressed to the petitioner dated 25-2-81. The petitioner is resisted on the ground that the alleged award is not valid as no land acquisition proceedings were initiated and a committee was appointed to go into the question as what compensation is to be paid, the petitioner is not thus entitled to the award of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the peti-tioner is entitled to get compensation as awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is true that regular land acquisition proceeding did not take place still the matter was dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer on the application of the petitioner. This was done in pursuance of directions given by the Collector and state authorities. It is recorded in the award that the Collector Ganganagar vide his letter dated 25-11-80 directed the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the matter of crop compensation at the earliest. A letter was also addressed by the Addl. Chief Engineer, Command Area Development, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner to the Collector, Sri-Ganganagar in this connection. It was requested therein that award of compensation by the competent authorities in accordance with rules be expedited. It is in this manner that the Land Acquisition Officer took up the matter and determined the compensation to be awarded to the petitioner. Even when land acquisition proceeding has not been initiated still the matter was left to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation for the period for which the petitioner remained out of possession of the land. Now it is not open to the respondents to challenge the award, if the respondents intended to challenge the award they should have resorted to the remedy u/sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act for getting the reference made. [that remedy has not been resorted to. That apart what we find is sanction order which was issued by the government for making payment of compensation. There is no reason to disbelieve the fact stated in Ex. 5 in this regard. In view of the recital in Ex. 5 it may be presumed that such a sanction order was issued. It was the responsibility of the respondents to rebut the same by producing relevant record that in fact no such order was issued. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 19-12-80. As regards the claim of interest, it may be stated that the petitioner had approached this court on 2nd of December 1985. He ought to have approached this court earlier. In these circumstances it would be proper to award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.