Punjab State vs Nangal Nikku

G.C. Garg, J.—After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the averments made in the Civil Misc. application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay in filing the present revision is condoned.

Land was notified for acquisition by issuing notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') on 1.7.1977 for public purpose, namely, for Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project. Notification u/s 6 of the Act was also issued in due course. The Collector ultimately gave his award on 11.8.1978. Some of the claimants sought references u/s 18 of the Act. The references were answered by the learned Addl. District Judge by award dated 2.12.1989. Compensation was enhanced by the learned Addl. District Judge. Thereafter the respondent-landowners moved an application u/s 28-A on 31.1.1990/1.2.1990 with a prayer that the amount of compensation awarded in their favour be re-determined and paid accordingly as per the award of the Court in Col. Rukman Singh''s case as they had not moved the Collector u/s 18 of the Act.

Learned Collector considered the request of the claimants and after notice to the beneficiaries and the State of Punjab, redetermined compensation and ordered its payment by his order dated 8.9.1992.

Aggrieved by the order of the Collector redetermining the amount of compensation, the Executive Engineer, Hydel, Construction Division No. 1, Ganguwal, Distt. Ropar moved an application before the Collector u/s 28-A(3) of the Act on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board on 7.10.1992 with a prayer that the matter may be referred to the District Judge for determination of compensation. On a consideration of the matter, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the same to the District Judge on 29.5.1993. The said application was registered as Land Reference No. 87 of 27.7.1993 and was disposed of with other connected matters, by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 3.11.1995.

Learned Addl. District Judge in para 6 of his order first came to the conclusion that the Executive Engineer of the Punjab State Electricity Board was not competent to represent the State Government and move application for seeking reference and therefore, the application moved by him deserved to be dismissed on that ground and consequently the reference as well. A little later, learned Addl. District Judge considered the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 20-A of the Act and relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Babua Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Judgment Today 1994(7) S.C. 377 held that the Collector, Land Acquisition had no power to make reference at the instance of the beneficiaries and the State under Sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act. He consequently declined the reference as not maintainable on the above two counts.

Aggrieved by the'' order of learned Addl. District Judge, the State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer of the Punjab State Electricity Board filed this revision petition challenging the order of the learned Addl. District Judge.

In response to notice of motion, the respondents have put in appearance. 8. Mr. Rajan Gupta learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Addl. District Judge was not right in dismissing the reference as not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, reference at the behest of the beneficiary is maintainable under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act. He also submitted that the Executive Engineer is the officer incharge of the Hydel Project and, therefore, he could seek reference on behalf of beneficiary i.e. the Punjab State Electricity Board, since the compensation was to be paid by the latter. Mr. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for claimant-respondent on the other hand placing strong reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Babua Ram''s case (supra) contended that without going into the question, whether reference could be sought by the Executive Engineer of the Punjab State Electricity Board, the beneficiary for whom the acquisition has been made, has no right to seek reference either u/s 18 or Sub section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act. He in particular, placed strong reliance on paras 43, 44 and 45 of the judgment of the apex Court in Babua Ram''s case (supra).

On a consideration of the matter, I find that the contention raised by Mr. Sarin has merit. In para 43 of the judgment, it was observed :-

"However, acceptance of the award under Sub-section (3) appears to us to be, an acceptance by the claimant and not by the beneficiary or the State, as the Collector acts on their behalf as an agent. It is true that the award u/s 11 was made with prior approval of the State Government or its authorised officer and that limitation expressly was not laid in Section 28-A(2) but the legal effect does not get altered by virtue of the above distinction or omission in Section 28-A(2). The participation in the proceedings and right to an opportunity of hearing including the right to adduce evidence by the beneficiary though in normal parlance carries with it the right to an appeal, in view of the scheme and the language of Section 11 u/s 28-A(2) does not clothe the beneficiary with a right to seek reference when he does not have such a right u/s 18."

A little later, the apex Court went to observe that the Collector being an authority under the Act, the award of the Collector made u/s 28-A is not totally immune from jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, if required to be challenged by the State or the beneficiary, who have no other legal remedy in the matter. In view of the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the beneficiaries for whom the land was acquired or the State of Punjab who acquired the land, had no right to seek reference u/s 28-A(3) of the Act against the order of the Collector whereby he redetermined the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the award of the Court. In that view of the matter, this revision has no merit and the same is consequently dismissed. No costs.