Pat Ram vs State of Haryana

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The petitionerlandowners have impugned the legality of their dispossession from their land by the State Government and respondent No. 4, the Government Contractor/Lessee, inter alia, on the grounds : (i) that the provision of Rule 61 of Punjab Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1964, is ultra vires the Constitution inter alia for the reason that it does not provide for a notice to the landowners/occupiers for the purposes of determination of compensation, and (ii) that the Government had determined the amount of compensation without giving any notice to the petitioners.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e. State of Haryana, the District Industries Officer, Bhiwani and the Collector Bhiwani respectively, it has been asserted that the constitutional vires of Rule 61 have been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1966(1) I.L.R. Punjab 166. The written statement, however, is silent in regard to the assertion in the petition that the compensation had been determined without notice to the petitioners.

The counsel appearing for the respondentState was, therefore, directed to produce the official record to enable the Court to see as to whether the order determining compensation had been passed with or without the prior notice to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondentState Mr. Verma after looking into the record fairly conceded that no notice had been sent to the petitioners either before or at the time of determining of the compensation amount nor they had been afforded any hearing.

The decision relied upon on behalf of the respondentState in Khushal Singh''s case (supra), has no doubt upheld the constitutional vires of Rule 61 but at the same time it has also ruled that before the determination of compensation, the landowners had to be given notice and heard by the Government or the functionary exercising the powers of the Government. In this regard the following observations of Narula, J. who delivered the opinion for the Bench can be noticed with advantage :

"The contention of Mr. Doabia about rule 61 providing for determination of compensation without notice to the landowners or occupiers appears to be misfounded. If there is a genuine apprehension on that account I would hold that the Government and/or the Collector must hear the owner or occupier of the land in question before deciding the amount of compensation payable to such owner or occupier of land under Rule 61 of the Punjab Rules. In fact it appears that Rule 61 provides for determination of compensation in accordance with the principles of the Land Acquisition Act, and that Act necessarily provides that the compensation would be fixed after notice to and after hearing all persons interested in the matter."

Since the notice of the petitionerlandowners before the determination of the compensation amount was mandatory and the same having not been done, the order Annexure P2 dated 13.5.1976 of the Collector, Bhiwani determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 375/ per acre is clearly illegal and void ab initio. The same is, therefore, quashed.

The Collector, Bhatinda, is directed to determine compensation of the leased area afresh after due notice to the petitioners as also the Contractor and after affording them opportunity of hearing. While assessing the compensation, the Collector shall not only take into account the loss of fertility of the soil and the amount that the landowners may have to spend in levelling the soil but also the loss that the landowners would suffer as a result of being prevented from sowing the crop for the lease period.

As per the judgment of the Division Bench in Khushal Singh''s case (supra), the contractor could take possession of the leased land only after the compensation amount was offered to the landowners. Since, as already observed, the order determining compensation was void ab initio, so it cannot be said in this case that there had been offer of payment of due compensation to the petitinerlandowners, hence the possession of the land of the petitioners taken by the Contractor was thus unauthorised from the very inception.

The compensation that is determined under Rule 61 envisages compensation for authorised possession of the land and not for unauthorised possession, with the result that the petitionerlandowners shall be entitled to additional damages for unauthorised possession of land which amount also shall be determined by the Collector, Bhiwani, in addition to the amount envisaged under Rule 61.

Mr. Balhara, counsel for the petitioners, states that the State Government after taking possession of the land from the petitioners for respondent No. 4 had thereafter been leasing the land to other Contractors for subsequent years and had been determining the compensation for the subsequent years too without notice to the petitioners.

Since, the initial possession of the petitioners was unauthorised and thereafter the petitioners had not been put into possession before leasing out afresh, then the subsequent possession of the land to the Lessees/Contractors also shall continue to be unauthorised for the length of period the petitionerlandowners remained out of possession.

The Collector Bhiwani, therefore, shall reexamine the question of compensation for the subsequent years too in the light of the decision of the present writ petition and assess the compensation amount as also the additional amount on account of damages for the unauthorised possession of the petitioners'' land after hearing the landowners as also the concerned Contractor or Contractors.

The petitionerlandowners shall be entitled to the payment of interest as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, on the compensation amount from the date they were dispossessed till the date of actual payment of compensation amount. Unauthorised deposit of compensation amount with the Collector and refusal on the part of the petitioners to receive such compensation amount shall not be treated as payment of compensation to the petitioners.

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above with costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/ to be paid by the respondent No. 1 and 4 in equal shares.