Mahesh Chand vs Union of India and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he was in possession of certain properties in a background which is not relevant, but partaking the character of Nuzul property. On an application filed on 09.08.2001 before the competent authority, the said properties were sold to the petitioner on 15.09.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,200/-. The petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount in the Government Treasury in one installment and the sale-deed was to be executed and registered after the decision in Execution Application No. 17/1996 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Weir. Vide order dated 01.10.2001, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount in favour of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Bharatpur Division) which was so deposited under challan dated 10.10.2001.

It is submitted that vide order dated 14.09.2007, the Executing Court held that the disputed property was indeed Nuzul property. No appeal was filed or other proceedings were initiated against the order dated 14.09.2007, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Application No. 17/1996. The order attained finality. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application on 03.10.2007 before the Secretary, Department of General Administration (Estate), Secretariat, Jaipur to execute a formal sale-deed of the land in issue along with four shops constructed thereon in his favour. But to no avail.

This situation obtained when proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the strip of land in possession of the petitioner (in respect of which he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,200/- in terms of the decision of the State Government) commencing with the notification under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter "the Act of 1956") on 30.09.2005. The SDO, Weir was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "LAO"). The land in the possession of the petitioner was included in the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner being the de facto owner of the property in dispute having paid the consideration to the Government and in possession thereof, filed an application before the LAO on 03.08.2007 stating that he was entitled to the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land in his possession. It is submitted that the said application was however confined to the record by the LAO on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the land in dispute as no registered sale-deed in his favour executed by the State Government attained.

It is submitted that even though an award had been passed on 28.11.2007 by the LAO acquiring the strip of land along with four shops in the petitioner s possession, his claim for compensation has not been considered arbitrarily and contrary to the specific provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956. It has been submitted that in terms of Section 3G(4) of the Act of 1956 all "persons interested" in the land acquired have a right to claim compensation. The case of the petitioner for grant of compensation ought to have been considered by the LAO in the circumstances set out before him, but has not been considered on the LAO''s misdirection in holding that without the petitioner''s formal ownership of the land acquired by way of registered sale-deed even though he was lawfully in possession, no claim at his instance was maintainable.

Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl. G.C., appearing for the respondents-State has not controverted the petitioner''s arguments that he was allotted the strip of land along with four shop thereon vide order dated 15.09.2001 and had paid the amount of Rs. 132,200/- as the agreed consideration for the transaction. It is also not disputed that in terms of allotment, a formal sale-deed was to be executed on the decision of the Executing Court. It is also not disputed that the Executing Court vide order dated 14.09.2007 has indeed held that the property in issue did not belong to Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Hallena, but was Nuzul property. It is also not disputed that despite several representations to the State Government to execute a formal sale-deed in respect of land in issue, the sale-deed has not been executed even though the petitioner has been ready and willing to pay the requisite stamp duty and registration charges.

Mr. Anurag Agarwal, appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that the compensation determined in terms of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 has been deposited with the competent authority and is payable in accordance with the Act of 1956.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.

Sub-section (4) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 provides that on notice being published with regard to the particulars of the land sought to be acquired, all persons interested in such land are to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner before the competent authority, at the time and place notified and state the nature of their respective interest in such land. Section 3H(1) of the Act of 1956 provides that "the amount determined under Section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 3H requires that on such deposit being made, the competent authority on behalf of the Central Government shall pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. Sub-section (3) of Section 3H provides that where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under Sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Sub-section (4) of Section 3H provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

A plain reading of Section 3G and Section 3H of the Act of 1956 makes it clear that any person who is interested in the land and in possession can lay a claim for compensation before the competent authority. The competent authority is under an obligation to adjudicate the claim and determine the right of the person entitled to compensation and in the event of a dispute, refer the matter to the Civil Court. The claim cannot be kept in abeyance. In the instant case, the petitioner having made a claim before the competent authority on the basis of the allotment letter in his possession and the receipt of the amount paid as consideration to the State Government, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to adjudicate the petitioner''s claim. There is nothing on record that the State Government has even claimed the amount of compensation for land acquired. One Hallena Samiti however appears to have laid its claim.

Be as it may, it was for the competent court to adjudicate the petitioner''s claim or otherwise refer the matter to the Civil Court, if warranted from a bona fide dispute of competing claimants. In failing to do so, the competent authority has erred and acted wholly arbitrary and without any application of mind in failing to exercise its jurisdiction.

Consequently, I would allow the writ petition. The LAO/competent authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to compensation for acquisition of land allotted to him and in the event of any bona fide dispute obtaining in respect of claim to compensation, refer the matter to the Civil Court. If there is no bona fide dispute made out from record, the LAO/competent authority is directed to disburse the compensation amount to the person entitled.

The entire exercise as directed hereinabove be completed within a period of four weeks from the presentation of a certified copy of this Court before the competent authority.

The writ petition stands allowed.