AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Sistani, J
The counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) submits that it is not necessary to file the counter affidavit.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated
17.03.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) has been dismissed.
The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 04.11.2004. Thereafter
an Award bearing no.1/2007-08 was passed on 06.08.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) decided a
reference being LAC No.101/11 on 15.12.2002 and re-determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.17,45,000/- per acre for
category/Block-A and for category/Block-B at rate of Rs.17,01,375/- per acre. On 22.12.2010, the petitioner filed reference petition under Section 18
of the Act, which was rejected by an order dated 03.03.2011 by the then Land Acquisition Collector (SW) as being time barred. Although the
reference was forwarded to the ADJ but the same was dismissed by the court of ADJ on 29.10.2011 on the ground that the same is barred by
limitation. This led to filing of a petition under Section 28A of the Act before the LAC which also stands dismissed by the impugned order dated
17.03.2017.
Mr.Maan submits that LAC, despite the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case ofU nion of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi and others,
reported at AIR 2002 SC 3240 ,has rejected the application on the basis of a reference order dated 17.04.2001, but did not rely upon the final order
and observed that the order in question has been referred to a larger bench. Mr.Maan contends that as per the decision rendered in the case of
Hansoli Devi (supra), it has been held has under:
“6. Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition
Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section
18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without
protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land
owner's application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the
Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial
right conferred upon the owner.â€
Mr.Panda, counsel for the LAC submits that in the decision of the five judges‟ Bench in the case of Hansoli Devi (supra) was not brought to the
notice to the LAC, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Land Acquisition Collector for fresh
hearing.
Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the counsel for the LAC, the impugned order of 17.03.2017 is set aside. The matter
is remanded back to the LAC to enable him to hear and decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Leave is granted to the parties to raise all the grounds.
Mr.Maan submits that by a subsequent order dated 11.12.2014, the Supreme Court has further enhanced the compensation. It will be open for the
parties to bring to the notice of LAC the aforesaid order, who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.