Mehar Singh vs Union of India

V.K. Bali, J.

The prayer in the petition is for a direction to be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioner of his 1/6th share of the land at the same rate as has been paid to respondents No. 3 to 7 for their 5/6th share of the land, subject matter of acquisition by respondent No. 1 and 2. Before the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are noticed, brief facts giving rise to this petition first need to be enumerated.

The petitioner jointly held with respondents No. 3 to 7 the land measuring 30 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 2354/1 situated in the revenue estate of Patti Maina, Bhatinda and the same was acquired for defence purposes under section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1971. Later a notification under section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `The Act of 1952'' was issued on 20.1.1975 and the land reference of which has been given above, was deemed to have been acquired by the said notification. The petitioner was sharer with his brothers, respondents No. 3 to 7 and all the brothers interse held 1/6th share each. The land measuring 30 bighas belonging to the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 7 was a part of the total land acquired vide notification aforesaid which comes to about 1230 acres at Patti Maina, Bhatinda. Special Land Acquisition Collector Competent Authority under the Defence of India Act, 1971 determined the market rate of the land, subject matter of the acquisition, vide his award dated 6th March, 1975 and various rates were fixed by him. Later on an application given by respondents No. 3 to 7, the matter was referred to the arbitrator for determination of compensation regarding 25 bighas of land which clearly means that inasmuch as the application for appointment of an Arbitrator was made by respondents No. 3 to the 7, the subject matter of the Arbitration was to be only 25 bighas of land belonging to respondents No. 3 to The Arbitrator is stated to have given the award on 7th June, 1985. The copy of the award aforesaid has been placed on records of this case as Annexure P I and the same shows that besides solatium and interest a claimant is entitled to under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the respondents No 3 to 7 were also held entitled to various rates i.e. Rs. 16.80 per sq. yard for land situated on either side of National Highway leading, from Bhatinda to Barnala upto the depth of 500 metres, Rs. 16.00 per sq. yard for land upto a depth of 500 metres from Municipal Limits/fencing of the antonment or from boundary of 3rd phase of Urban Estate of Bhatinda town and Rs. 8.50 per sq. yard for rest of the acquired land. When the brothers of the petitioner i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7 moved the Arbitrator for payment and succeeded in getting compensation qua their shares, as per award, Annexure P 1, the petitioner too filed an application praying therein that since the rate of compensation was determined in respect of the total area of 30 bighas jointly owned by the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 7 he too was entitled to the same rate. The Arbitrator declined the relief to the petitioner on the ground that he was not a party to the reference and was, therefore, not entitled to the same rate of the compensation, particularly when the reference for arbitration was relating to only 25 bighas out of 30 bighas of land. It may be mentioned here that under the provisions of the Act of 1952, the Arbitrator is District Judge of the district. The award, Annexure P. 1, has been passed by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and the application of the petitioner for giving him the same compensation as was given to his brothers also came up for disposal before the same Additional District Judge who declined it vide order Annexure P.2. It is that order of the Arbitrator which has been challenged in this case and the prayer has been made for payment of compensation to the extent and in the manner the same was made to cosharers and brothers of the petitioner who are respondents No. 3 to 7 in the present petition.

No written statement has been filed by the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 and the written statement filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 is of no meaning and consequence.

The main contention of the petitioner is that respondents No. 3 to 7 who are admittedly cosharers of the petitioner and the land of whom too was acquired vide the same notification along with the land of the petitioner, have been paid compensation as determined by the Arbitrator (Additional District Judge) and therefore, the petitioner could not be singled out. The reason given by the Arbitrator in declining the same compensation to the petitioner that the petitioner had received compensation on Form K, i.e. by entering into an agreement with the respondents would not hold good inasmuch as respondents No. 3 to 7 also similarly had entered into agreement made by one cosharer has necessarily to be deemed to have been made on behalf of all the cosharers. In support of the second contention raised by the counsel, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Punjab State (now Haryana) v. M/s. Globe Motors Ltd. and another, 1981 PLJ 73. Although as referred to above, no written statement has been filed by contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2, yet, relief prayed of by the petitioner is sought to be resisted on the ground that the moment the petitioner entered into an agreement and signed From K, he was neither entitled to any reference for adjudication by the Arbitrator nor was he entitled to seek enhancement in compensation on the ground that his brothers and cosharers successfully did so in arbitration proceedings on reference made by them. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

It is made out from the records of this case that the agreement executed by the petitioner on FromK was signed by him long after he had raised the dispute and such agreements were not signed him when the payment of the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made to him. In similar circumstances and pertaining to the same notification, justice D.V. Sehgal, as he then was, in Nihal Singh v. Union of India and another, 1986 38 RRR (P&H) : C.W.P. 3211 of 1985 decided on 14th July, 1986, held that reliance placed by the respondents on the agreements executed by the petitioner of that case on formK were of no avail. The petitioners in the said case had submitted their applications raising dispute for reference to an Arbitrator on 27th August, 1985. FormsK were signed by them long after they had raised the dispute. To the misfortune of the petitioner, however, an interparties judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 2533 of 1985 would not permit him to take the stand that even though he had executed the agreement in FormK, he was yet entitled to a reference to the Arbitrator for enhancement of compensation. Even though there is apparent conflict between the two judgments referred to above, one which is against the petitioner has come into being in the writ petition filed by himself. This petition was filed by him when initially his application for reference was declined by the Land Acquisition CollectorcumCompetent Authority.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner contends that at a time when he filed the aforesaid petition, the award that came into being in favour of his brothers, had not been announced. It is made out from the records that the petitioner filed writ petition reference of which has been given above, in 1984 and the award in favour of'' the brothers and cosharers of the petitioner came into being on 7th June, 1985. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to the same compensation that was awarded to his brothers who were also cosharers with him. In other words, the petitioner claims that fresh cause of action accrued to him on account of award having been announced in favour of his brothers and cosharers inasmuch as under the law even he is entitled to the same compensation that was awarded to his cosharers. In support of his aforesaid contention, the counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C.W P No 6210 of 1987 decided on 6th December, 1988. The aforesaid writ petition was filed for seeking reference on the ground that one of the cosharers has asked for a reference and the same had been referred. It is significant to mention that the writ petition on aforesaid pertained to the very notification vide which the land of the petitioner was also acquired, The short order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced below "There is no defence to this writ petition. It is admitted that one of the cosharers has asked for a reference and that has been referred. Therefore'' even if there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner has filed petition for reference or not, is also to be referred in view of the fact that this award was made on 7th June, 1985, subsequent to the amendment of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the respondents could not raise any meaningful argument and was content to say that once the reference of the petitioner was declined by the orders rendered in C.W.P. No. 4298 of 1984, the matter stands concluded and subsequent events would not make any difference.

In my considered view, the petition deserves to succeed. Although it is true that the writ petition earlier filed turned against the petitioner and on the basis that the petitioner had executed agreement in FormK, the desired relief was declined to him. However, it is equally true that at the time when the aforesaid writ petition was filed, the award in case of cosharers and brothers of the petitioner had come into being and, therefore, the ground to seek a reference or to get the same compensation as was allowed other claimants whose land too was acquired under the same notification, was not available to the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 6210 of 1987, reference of which has been givenabove, has clearly held that the very fact that reference has been made in the case of a cosharer would entitle the petitioners of the said case to have a reference in their case even though in the said case even filing of application to seek reference was disputed. The award in the case of brothers and cosharers of the petitioners also came into being after the amendment made in the Land Acquisition Act. Although it is true that instead of making an application to the Arbitrator for giving him the same compensation as was allowed to brothers and cosharers of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have made an application for reference on fresh ground that was made available to him, yet, this technicality cannot come in the way of advancement of justice. It is a case of compulsory acquisition of land. All the claimants as were brothers and cosharers of the petitioner and land of whom was acquired under the same notification have got the compensation as enhanced by the Arbitrator. It be too inequities and unjust to deny the same compensation to the petitioner.

In the facts of this cast, normally I would have directed the authorities to make a reference to the Arbitrator on the application made by the petitioner, but the same would only result in delaying the matter. It has been authoritatively held by Division Bench of this Court in Punjab State (now Haryana) v. M/s. Globe Motors N. (supra) that the claim by one cosharer would also for the benefit of other cosharers. Admittedly, in the present case, brothers be the petitioner, who were also cosharers, on a reference made by them to the Arbitrator have got enhancement in compensation as is reflected through award, Annexure P.1. The petitioner is clearly entitled to the same benefits which were given to his brothers.

In the fact, and circumstances fully detailed above, the order Annexure P2 would be set aside. The Arbitrator i.e. Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, would decide the matter afresh and the petitioner would be entitled to the same compensation as was given to the brothers and cosharers vide award, Annexure P1. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.