Basta Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by Basta Singh, Petitioner, seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, Punjab, to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the District Judge, Ropar.

First the factual matrix :

Some land belonging to Chanan Singh, resident of village Mataur was acquired by the State Government for a public purpose. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development, Punjab, made an award on 12th September, 1984 in favour of Smt. Bhajan Kaur, respondent No. 2, because she had claimed that Chanan Singh, aforementioned, had left some will in her favour. This will had been contested by Smt. Gija Kaur, respondent No. 3, mother of Smt. Bhajan Kaur. She filed an application under Section 30 and 31 (2) of the Act for making a reference for determination of apportionment of compensation. The Collector declined that application. A petition filed by Smt. Gija kaur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 18(3) of the Act was allowed by this Court on April 22, 1985 and a direction was issued to the Collector to make the reference to the District Judge in accordance with law.

The petitioner is uncle''s son of Chanan Singh aforementioned. He made an application to the Collector on July 12, 1984 for making a reference under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of compensation amount. A copy of the application is maked as Annexue P.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had requested the Collector to make the reference to the District Judge but he had not sent the records so far.

In response to the notice issued by this Court, written statement has been fled in which it has been, inter alia, stated that records of the office of the answering respondent do not indicate that any application dated July 12, 1984, on behalf of the petitioner for reference under Section 30 of the Act, as alleged in the present petition, had been received in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. It was admitted that the land of Chanan Singh was acquired and an award in relation thereto had been given on Sept. 12, 1984 and that Bhajan Kaur was declared to be entitled to receive compensation. It was also admitted that Smt. Gija Kaur had filed an application for seeking a reference under Section 30 of the Act and that the same had been dismissed by the Collector. It is also conceded that the petition filed by smt. Gija Kaur against that order had been allowed by this Court. In similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union India, 1984 R.R.R. 655 : 1982 P.L.J. 494, had ordered as under

"Accordingly, we would herein direct that on a proper application (precisely detailing P.4. his claim of having filed an application under Section 18 of the Act) made by the writ petitioner to the Collector, the latter shall refer the same to the District Court, which will then proceed to decide the contentions dispute betwixt the parties, whether the stand of the petitioner herein is correct or otherwise. In the event of the matter being decided in favour of the writ petitioner, the District Court would inevitably proceed to try and adjudicate on the reference under Section 18 of the Act."

Respectfully following the ratio of the aforementioned decision, I direct that on a proper application made by the petitioner to the Collector within a week, the latter will refer the same to the District Court, which will then proceed to decide the question whether the stand taken by the petitioner in that application is correct or otherwise. If the District Court comes to the conclusion that an application had been made by the petitioner then it would proceed to try and adjudicate on the reference.

The petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.