Prem Raj Singh vs State of U.P.and others

Anil Kumar, J.—The land in dispute has been acquired for the benefit of Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority (the Authority). In pursuance of the acquisition the award was also made in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 20. The petitioner filed an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) to refer the matter to the Civil Court for apportionment and restraining the respondent nos. 2 to 20, from receiving the compensation. This application has been rejected on 30.4.2009. Hence the present writ petition.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed an application under Section 30 of Act with the allegation that :

The property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner and respondent no. 20 on 8.11.1973.

Respondent no. 20 sold the property in dispute by means of three sale deed 30.11.1974, 28.7.1978, 16.10.1981.

These sale deeds are alleged to be executed by the petitioner.

The consolidation has also taken place in the year 1984 and thereafter, the name of the petitioner has been expunged and the names of respondent nos. 2 to 20 have been reordered.

The petitioner had no knowledge about the execution of the sale deeds and removal of his name from the revenue records. When he came to know about the same, he filed the three suits nos. 49, 50, and 51 of 2009. They are pending before the Civil Court in Gautam Budha Nagar.

It has not disputed that the petitioner never appeared at the time when award was being made. He appeared before respondent 21 only after the award was made and requested him to refer the matter to the Civil Court. It is also not disputed that the reference sought by the petitioner is under section 30 of the Act and not under section 18 of Act.

The power to refer the dispute under Section 30 of the Act has been held to be discretionary. (See Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237; G.Venkata Reddy Vs. K.Krishna Reddy AIR 1982 AP 86; Vishnu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1993 LAC 484).

It has also been held in the aforesaid decisions that in case the dispute is not referred to under Section 30 of the Act then it is open to the aggrieved person to file a suit for adjudication of the rights. This is also import of the third proviso to Section 31 (2) of the Act.

The petitioner has already filed three suits, he may pursue the same and seek appropriate relief there in or file fresh suit for vindication of his rights. In case fresh suit is filed then it will consolidated with the previously filed three suits by the petitioner and all will be decided together.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.