Prem Chand vs Land Acquisition-cum-Assistant Revenue Officer

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order Annexure P.1 by virtue of which the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') has been dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the land under acquisition in the revenue record.

Mr. Gobind Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Section 18 of the Act covers the case of the petitioner as he comes with in the meaning and definition of the words ''any person interested''. It has further been argued that the petitioner''s possession over the land in dispute which has been so averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition has not been denied in the written statement.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the landowner, Mr. Mani Ram, who assisted this Court though his client is not respondent, I am of the view that the Collector has proceeded on wrong premises while declining the reference. It is nowhere the requirement of law that a person should be the owner before he can claim reference under Section 18. Even a person in possession a tenant is a person interested within the meaning and ambit of Section 18 of the Act. In view thereof, there is no other alternative for me but to quash the order Annexure P1 and direct the Collector to decide the question whether the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land in accordance with the revenue records and thereafter refer the case under Section 18 for the decision to the Land Acquisition Collector. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the collector on 6.4.1992 when he would examine the revenue records and take a decision in accordance with law. Since, the matter has already been delayed, the Collector is directed to take a decision within two months from today. No costs.