Parkash Devi and others vs State of Punjab and another

Ashok Bhan, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of two C.W.P. No. 9849 of 1990 as common question of law and fact is involved in both the cases. The facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 9849 of 1990.

Admitted facts of the case are that on 2.11.1978, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State of Punjab, acquiring 51 Acres 4 Kanals 10 marlas of land, for extension of the existing grain market at Fazilka. Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 21.5.1979. Some of the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act for reference. Those cases were referred to the District Judge for degtermination under Section 18 of the Act. Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 22.7.1984 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 350/ per marla. Still dissatisfied, the claimants filed number of regular first appeals which were disposed of by N.C. Jain, J. vide his judgment dated 3.2.1989 enhancing the compensation to Rs. 800/ per marla. The main judgment was written in R.F.A. No. 40 of 1985.

Petitioners whose land had been acquired under the same notification dated 2.11.1978 filed application under Section 28A of the Act claiming enhanced compensation granted by this Court in R.F.A. No. 40 of 1985 to the other claimants. They had stated in their applications that their land was acquired by the same notification dated 2.11.1978 and that they had not filed any reference application under Section 18 of the Act. Arguments were heard by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.8.1989 but the award was not announced. Claimants were forced to file a writ petition in this Court for direction to the Land Acquisition Collector, to announce the orders on the applications under Section 28A of the Act (C.W.P. No. 3346 of 1990 dated 9.3.1990). In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it was stated that he had already passed the orders on 16.4.1990. In view of this, C.W.P. No. 3346 of 1990, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed as infructuous. The order passed by the Collector on 16.4.1990 has been impugned by the writ petitioners. Order dated 16.4.1990 passed by the Collector is reproduced below :

"File put up. The land acquisition record perused. This case has been received under Section 28A. In this regard the counsel for the applicant was heard on 28.8.1989. This case is not covered under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is rejected. After intimating the aplicant in this regard, the file be consigned to the records."

A perusal of this order would show that the same is a nonspeaking order and the case of the petitioners has been rejected only by observing that the case is not covered under Section 28A of the Act without giving any reasons whatsoever. The order is cryptic in nature and the learned counsel appearing for the State was unable to defend the same.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioenrs argued that the order passed by the Collector was wrong, illegal and totally misconceived as he acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Section 28A of the Act reads as under :

"28A(1). Where in an award under this part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, subsection (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court :.........

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under subsection (1), conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under subsection (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18."

A perusal of Section 28A of the Act would show that if the Court allows to any claimant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, then the other claimants interested in the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 and who are aggrieved by the award to the Collector, may file an application within three months to the Collector from the date of enhancement granted by the Court requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. In this particular case the petitioners had not filed any application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation against hte order of the Collector. Reference applications were filed by some other claimants and the compensation was enhanced by the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act to Rs. 350/ per Marla. This Court in R.F.A. No. 40 of 1985 had further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 800/ per Marla vide order dated 3.2.1989. The present petitioners filed applications under Section 28A of the Act in March 1990 i.e. within three months and were thus entitled to avail of the benefits given to the claimants under Section 28A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector has erred in denying those benefits to the claimants illegally by pasing a nonspeaking order. This case is covered by a judgment of this Court reported as Anant Ram v. State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, 1990(1) RRR 561 (P&H) : 1989(2) PLR 647. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced below :

"After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar I am of the considered view that the approach of the learned Land Acquisition Collector in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived and he acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. Section 28A of the Act reads as follows :

"28A....................

The first clause of the Section provides that if in an award under this Part (Part III Sections 18 to 28A) the Court allows the applicant any amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same very notification under Section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may notwithstanding that they had not made any application to the Collecotr under Section 18 by written aplication to the Collector within three months of the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Now, admittedly in the present cases, the amount of compesnation was awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, which amount was enhanced by the Court on reference. That being so, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector can, by written application to the Collector within three months, claim that the amount of compensation be redetermined. It could not be disputed that the petitioners are the persons interested, as their land was also acquired by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and they had not made any application to the Colelctor under Section 18 of the Act. Reading the Section as a whole, the persons who have been given the benefit thereunder are those persons whose land was acquired by the same notification under Section 4. The said persons will be entitled to the enhanced compensation if the Court allows the claimants any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. It could also not be disputed that the other awards given in the case of other claimants were under Section 11 and when they sought reference under Section 18, the amount was enhanced therein. Once the amount was enhanced by the Court, the petitioners being persons interested in the land covered by the same notification under Section 4 would also be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 28A."

In view of the foregoing discussion, writ petitions are allowed, impugned order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 16.4.1989 is set aside and the cases are remitted back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 28A of the Act and the observations made above.

Since the petitioners have been put to unnecessary harassment by passing a nonspeaking order; the respondentState is burdened with costs of Rs. 2,000/ in each case. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Punjab, Chandigarh on 8.3.1991. The Collector shall decide the cases within one month of the receipt of this order.