Nirmal Singh vs Union of India

G.R. Majithia, J.—The landownerclaimants have come up in revision against the order of the Land Acquisition Court declining their prayer

for amendment of the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') to incorporate the plea that the land

acquired is situate within the revenue limits of village Qilla Nau, tehsil and district Faridkot.

There is no dispute about the facts. The petitioner''s land has been acquired. They were dissatisfied with the compensation assessed by the Land

Acquisition Collector and got the reference made to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the application it was stated by

them that the land acquired is situated in the revenue estate of Faridkot. Subsequently, they came to know that the acquired land is situated in the

revenue estate of Qilla Nau, tehsil and district Faridkot. They moved an application under Order 6 rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, for amendment

of the application under Section 18 of the Act. The application was declined by the Land Acquisition Court vide order dated February 1, 1984.

The application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, was declined only on the ground that the petitioners could not be allowed to change their

position because earlier they had consistently maintained that the land was situated in the revenue limits of Faridkot.

The approach of the Land Acquisition Court is wholly erroneous. If the petitioners succeed in proving that by mistake it was stated in the

application under Section 18 of the Act that the acquired land is situated in the revenue estate of village Qilla Nau and not Faridkot, they will be

entitled to have their claim for enhanced compensation adjudicated. Otherwise, their claim application is likely to be rejected on the solitary ground

that the acquired land is situate at different place than the one alleged and was not owned by the petitioners. The petitioners have to prove that their

land situated within the limits of a particular revenue estate had been compulsorily acquired. They have to establish on evidence that the land for

which reference was got made was acquired. They have still to substantiate their plea that the acquired land is situated within the limits of revenue

estate of Qilla Nau. No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent. The petitioners have been unnecessarily made to suffer because of the

very hypothetical and unjust view taken by the Land Acquisition Court.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to amend the application

under Section 18 of the Act and incorporate therein that the acquired land is situated within the limits of revenue estate of Qilla Nau, Tehsil and

District Faridkot. There will be no order as to costs. Records of the Land Acquisition Court be remitted to it, which shall dispose of the reference

within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.