Jai Ram and Others vs Sewak Ram and Another

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Petitioners allege that they were owners of a moiety share in a parcel of land situate in village Nela, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi district. The land was acquired in proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made on 4th June, 1968. The Land Acquisition Collector, the second Respondent, paid the amount of compensation in respect of the share of the Petitioners to their father Sewak Ram, the first Respondent. The Petitioners contend that the payment of the compensation money by the Land Acquisition Collector to Sewak Ram is without jurisdiction. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution they seek relief against the said payment and for an order requiring Sewak Ram to refund the amount and requiring the Land Acquisition Collector to deposit the compensation amount in Court under the Land Acquisition Act.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the share of the land acquired was inherited by the Petitioners from their grand-father--that the first Respondent had no right, title or interest in the land whatever and that while Jai Ram, the first Petitioner, had attained majority the remaining Petitioners were minors and therefore persons not competent to alienate the land and the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were attracted. The Collector, it is said, was bound by the statute to deposit the amount of the compensation in court and not to pay it to Sewak Ram even though he was the father of the Petitioners.

In my opinion, the petition as framed does not entitle the Petitioners to relief. Before relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners must show that the Compensation money was paid without their knowledge to Sewak Ram and they must apply for relief to this Court within a reasonable time. Nowhere in the petition have the Petitioners averred that they had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings leading to the award and of the proceedings which culminated in the payment of compensation money to Sewak Ram. All that is stated is that the Petitioners were not given any information of the award and that the Petitioners came to know of the payment in August, 1969. Merely because the Petitioners were not given information of the award does not mean that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. And as regards the allegation that they came to know of the payment in August, 1969, that is deposed in the affidavit in support of the petition upon information from documents and advice and not to the personal knowledge of the deponent. What the documents are has also not been disclosed. All this assumes significance when we find that the Respondents do not admit in their returns that the Petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings and that they came to know of the payment in August, 1969. Before the Petitioners can be granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution they must show that they had no knowledge of the proceeding for payment of the compensation money to Sewak Ram and, therefore, at least one of them, Jai Ram, who is said to have attained majority was not in a position to raise objection to the payment being made to Sewak Ram. The Petitioners have also not established that they have come to this Court without laches. The payment, as Annexure ''C'' of the petition shows, was made in June, 1968, and the Petitioners filed this petition in September, 1969. The allegation that they came to know of the payment in August, 1969 is of doubtful veracity, specially as it is not shown to the personal knowledge of the deponent. A Petitioner in a case such as this must apply for relief expeditiously, and not when there is the possibility that if an order for refund is addressed to the person to whom the Land Acquisition Collector has made payment it may turn out to be futile. The Petitioners themselves have averred in the petition that Sewak Ram has been spending money beyond his means. Accordingly, I would refuse relief to the Petitioners on this short ground. In doing so, I should not be taken to have expressed any opinion whatever on the merits of the Petitioners'' case that they are entitled to an order directing the Land Acquisition Officer to reverse the action taken by him and after obtaining a refund from Sewak Ram deposit the compensation money in court.

The petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.