AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Considering the similitude of the controversy involved in both the cases, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order, however, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken into consideration from WP No. 1806/2012.
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking following relief:-
Quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to refer the matter to the Court as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Any other order or direction which this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed together with cost of the petition.
It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that as the land belonging to the petitioner was a residential land, because of the development of Shahdol Township, the rate of the land of the said area was much higher, however, the compensation was not properly calculated and the award has been passed. It is submitted that ignoring the objections raised by the petitioners and other people, the respondent no.2 has passed the award under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'Act').
It is submitted that being dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed an application-Annexure P/2 before the respondent No.2 invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the competent Court. However, the respondent no.1, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners have already accepted the amount of compensation. Hence, this petition.
It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents were duty bond to refer the matter to the court for fair adjudication of the dispute. The respondents have not acted fairly in awarding the compensation despite filing of necessary documents. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5 . Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the proceedings for acquisition were initiated and thereafter, the award in respect of the land owned by the petitioners was passed, however, same was challenged before the High Court in WP No. 6214/2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2001 by remanding the matter to the competent authority to reassess the amount of compensation. Thereafter, the amount of compensation was reassessed and on 14.02.2002 (Annexure R/4), the revised calculation was prepared and notices were issued to the petitioners for receiving the amount of compensation in the year 2002, however, despite service, the petitioners did not appear before the authority for receiving the amount and finally, after notice dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure R/6), the petitioners appeared before the authority and received the amount. The petitioner No. 1(L.R.) received the amount on 01.08.2011 and petitioner No. 2(L.R.) received the amount on 31.01.2011.
It is submitted that as the notices have been served in the year 2002 itself, therefore, as per sub-section 2 of Section 18 Proviso-1 of the Act, 1894, the petitioners were required to file an application for reference for determination by the court to the competent authority within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice, however, the applications have been filed, as is apparent from the impugned order Annexure P/1, on 08.02.2011, 24.01.2011 and 24.01.2011. Therefore, such applications being time barred could not have been decided by the Collector. However, by the impugned order-Annexure P/1, the application for reference has been rejected. It is submitted that the order passed by the Collector was absolutely in consonance of Section 18(2) Priviso-1 of the Act, therefore, cannot be called for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Mohd. Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1979) 2 SCC 572 , Ashwani Kumar Dhingra vs. State of Punjab reported in (1992) 2 SCC 592 and judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Teluram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others decided on 4th January, 2001 reported in 2001(2) ILR Punjab and Haryana 243 to state that for the purpose of reference, two parameters, which are provided under the law, are that at the time of award if the petitioner is present then it is required to be submitted within six weeks and if he is not satisfied with the award then protest is to be made at the relevant point of time. If these parameters are not made then no reference can be referred by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the person, who is claiming the compensation, either has to accept it with protest and then file an application or submit an objection without accepting it then only the reference can be made.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of return submitted by the respondents for which no rejoinder has been filed, it is an admitted position that the petitioners have received the amount of compensation in the year 2011 and thereafter, they have preferred this petition before this Court on the strength that they have filed an application for reference to the competent authority in the year 2011, however, it is also seen from the record that the notices were issued to the petitioners in the year 2002 for receiving the amount, which they have received in the year 2002 itself, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, otherwise also the application for reference could not have been referred by the competent authority in the light of the provisions of Section 18(2) Priviso-1 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present petition.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnuddin (supra) has laid down the principle in regard to payment of compensation in terms of Section 18 of the Act wherein it has been held that the competent authority is competent to decide the question of limitation and reject the application, if it is not falling within the parameters of Section 18(1) and (2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex in para-26 has held as under:-
"26.If an application is made which is not within time, the Collector will not have the power to make a reference. In order to determine the limits of his own power, it is clear that the Collector will have to decide whether the application presented by the claimant is or is not within time, and satisfies the conditions laid down in Section 18. Even if a reference is wrongly made by the Collector the court will still have to determine the validity of the reference because the very jurisdiction of the court to hear a reference depends on a proper reference being made under Section 18, and if the reference is not proper, there is no jurisdiction in the court to hear the reference. It follows that it is the duty of the court to see that the statutory conditions laid down in Section 18 have been complied with, and it is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference. It is only a valid reference which gives jurisdiction to the court and, therefore, the court has to ask itself the question whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the reference." Further, in the case of Ashwani Kumar Dhingra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para -10 has held as under:-
"10.The acceptance of compensation under protest was not done by the appellant with a view to safeguard his right to challenge the acquisition itself but to safeguard his right to require the matter being referred by the Collector for determination of the Court in relation to the matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear from the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the person interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of reference can do so only if he does not accept the Award. In order to show that the person concerned had not accepted the Award the claimants accept the compensation only under protest because once the compensation awarded in pursuance of the Award is accepted without protest the person concerned may lose his right to a reference for various matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act." The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Telu Ram (Supra) in para 8 and 9 has held as under:-
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashwani Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab, [(1992) 2 SCC 592 : AIR 1992 SC 974] entertained the claim of the appellants because they had accepted the compensation under protest. The Hon'ble Apex Court clearly enunciated the law that to maintain a petition under Section 18, condition precedent was non-acceptance of compensation or acceptance of awarded compensation under protest. Their Lordships held as under:—
“It is clear from the provisions of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the person interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of reference can do so only if he does not accept the award. In order to show that the person concerned had not accepted the award the claimants accept the compensation only under protest because once the compensation awarded in pursuance of the award is accepted without protest the person concerned may loose his right to a reference for various matters mentioned in S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.”
9.Keeping in view the admitted facts of the present case and the law enunciated above, I have no hesitation in accepting the contention raised on behalf of the State. The claimant petitioner having accepted the compensation without protest or prejudice to his right to claim enhancement is debarred from claiming enhancement under Section 18 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid analysis of fact and law, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.