C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: August 20, 2009
1. C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
Sadhu Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
2 C.R. No. 5676 of 2007
Chhota Singh and others
.....Petitioners
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
3. C.R. No. 5677 of 2007
Gurdial Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
4. C.R. No. 5678 of 2007
Sumeet Kumar and another
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [2]
.....Petitioners
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
5. C.R. No. 5679 of 2007
Roshan Lal
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
6. C.R. No. 5680 of 2007
Raj Nath
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
7. C.R. No. 5681 of 2007
Tara Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [3]
8. C.R. No. 5682 of 2007
Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another
.....Respondents
9. C.R. No. 317 of 2008
Ashok Kumar
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and others
.....Respondents
10. C.R. No. 6964 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
11. C.R. No. 6965 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [4]
12. C.R. No. 6966 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
13. C.R. No. 6967 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
14. C.R. No. 6968 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
15. C.R. No. 6969 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [5]
16. C.R. No. 6970 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
17. C.R. No. 6971 of 2006
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr.Pawan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in CR Nos.
5675, 5676, 5677, 5678, 5679 & 5682 of 2007 and for Pvt.
Respondents in CR Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6969 &
6970 of 2006.
Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners in CR Nos.5680,
5681 of 2007 and 317 of 2008.
Mr. H.S. Riar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
for the Board in CR Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968, 6969,
6970, 6971 of 2006.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [6]
This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 5675, 5676,
5677, 5678, 5679, 5680, 5681, 5682 of 2007 and 317 of 2008.filed by the
claimant- petitioners and Civil Revision Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968,
6969, 6970, 6971 of 2006, filed by Punjab Mandi Board (hereinafter
referred to as Board- petitioner). All the revision petitions have been taken
up together for adjudication as these arise out of the same acquisition
proceedings arisen pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated January
11, 1999 for acquiring land of the land owners measuring 20 kanals 12
marls within the Municipal limits of Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.
In the revision petitions filed by the claimants, facts have been
taken from CR No. 5675 of 2007 and the revision petitions filed by Punjab
Mandi Board, facts have been taken from CR No. 6970 of 2006.
Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy are that
20 kanals 12 marlas of land was acquired by the Government to establish
new Grain Market. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
January 11, 1999 which was published in extraordinary gazette on January
11, 1999. After publication, objections were heard on May 7, 1999.
Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on August
12, 1999 in the Government gazette of the said date. The Land Acquisition
Collector vide his award No. 5 dated August 9, 2001 awarded compensation
for the land upto the depth of 36 karms at the rate of Rs.5 lacs per acre and
after 36 karms for remaining land at the rate of Rs.3.85 lacs per acre to the
claimants besides determining the compensation for super-structure. Not
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [7]
satisfied with the award, large number of claimants sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act which was sent by the Collector for determination. It
is made clear that the claimant- petitioners did not opt to file reference
under Section 18 of the Act but they had received the amount of award
determined under Section 11 of the Act under protest. The Additional
District Judge, Bathinda in reference under Section 18 of the Act enhanced
the compensation amount to Rs.450/- per sq. yards for the land in the first
belt abutting main road upto 36 karms depth vide award dated April 21,
2005. However, in view of the enhancement of compensation granted by
Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated April 21, 2005, the
claimant- petitioners submitted their applications under Section 28-A of the
Act to the Land Acquisition Collector who vide order dated July 4, 2006,
allowed the claim- compensation at the same enhanced rate as awarded by
Additional District Judge, Bathinda. The order dated July 4, 2006 is passed
under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award dated April 21,
2005 passed by the Additional District judge. The claimant- petitioners
have filed the revision petitions claiming that the Collector was requested to
refer the dispute to the District Judge for adjudication on merits but the said
relief has not been given and the action of Land Acquisition Collector, in
not referring the dispute for adjudication to District Judge, Bathinda, as they
were not satisfied with the award, is illegal. Referring to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act, it was contended that after the receipt of application
filed under Section 28-A of the Act, the Collector could have referred the
dispute for adjudication to the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. It was
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [8]
contended that according to Section 28 (3) of the Act, any person who has
not accepted the award under Section 28 (2) may by written application to
the Collector, require that matter be referred to the Collector for the
determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 of the
Act would be applicable. It was contended that neither the Additional
District Judge nor the Collector has considered that the acquired land is
commercial and there are many factories on both sides of the land acquired.
The acquired land abuts on the main road of Rampura Talwandi and is
within the Municipal limits of Maur Mandi. There is a rising trend in the
prices of the land as such the petitioners are entitled for enhanced
compensation as market value has not been properly assessed.
So far as the Board- petitioner in CR No. 6970 of 2006 and
other connected revision petitions is concerned, the grievance of the Board
is that after receipt of application under Section 28-A of the Act from the
claimant- petitioners, the Collector while giving award dated July 4, 2006 in
the light of the award passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dated
April 21, 2005, did not issue any notice to the petitioner- Board as the
petitioner- Board has got an interest and that the petitioner- Board is also an
aggrieved party against the award of the reference Court passed vide order
dated April 21, 2005. It was argued that the said award of Reference Court
has been challenged by the Board by filing Regular First appeals under
Section 54 of the Act. Relying upon the judgment of Babua Ram and
others Vs. State of U.P. and another, Supreme Court Judgment on Land
Acquisition (1994-2004) page 168, it was contended that it would be
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [9]
obligatory for the Collector to keep the applications for re-determination of
the compensation received by him within period of limitation, pending
awaiting the decision of the High Court and that the compensation was
required to be re-determined only on the basis of the final judgment and
decree.
Senior counsel for the Board- Mr.H.S. Riar, contended that the
Board- petitioner falls within the definition of interested person who falls
under the definition of Section 28A (2) of the Act. The Board has got a
right, before award is made and to carry the same in appeal under Section 54
of the Act. It was urged that the award of the Collector under Section 28A
(2) of the Act is an award and per takes the same character was an offer and
not a decision.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners in both set of petitions
and considered their respective contentions. The claimant- petitioners had
sought the re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section
28A of the Act which enable a claimant for higher compensation on the
basis of the award passed by the Reference Court for the amount of
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under
Section 11 of the Act. When a claimant is interested in the other land
covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and has not
sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving an application to
the Collector, he can, by written application to the Collector within three
months from the date of the award of the Court make a request that amount
of compensation payable to the other owners whose land form the subject
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
[10]
matter of the same notification under Section 4 of the Act, be re-determined
on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The
petitioners had approached the Land Acquisition Collector under the
proviso of Section 28A of the Act within a period of three months and the
Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated July 4, 2006 has re-fixed the
amount of compensation in consonance with the award passed by the
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The objection of Section 28-
A of the Act is the disbursement of payment of actual compensation to all
the people having interests in the land acquired under the same notification.
The beneficial interpretation of Section 28A of the Act is that all the
claimants whose land is the subject matter of the same notification under
Section 4 (1) of the Act should be entitled to get similar compensation after
the disposal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners
after having been granted the compensation seek a further reference for
enhancement of the compensation which is not permissible under the
provisions of the Act. They are not entitled to file first appeal for further
enhancement. The bare reading of provisions of Section 28A of the Act
indicates that it only enables the re-determination of the amount of
compensation on the basis of the award of the Court under Section 18 of the
Act. It is nowhere the case of the petitioners that they had not accepted the
award under Section 28 A (2) of the Act or that they had submitted any
application to the Collector for determination of the matter by the Court. In
view of said circumstances, there is no ground for interference in the order
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28 (1) of the Act.
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
[11]
The revision petitions of the claimant- petitioners are thus dismissed.
So far as the revision petitions filed by the Board against the
order of Collector dated July 4,2006 awarding compensation on re-
determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of
the Court are concerned, the grievance of the Board is two fold; first
grievance is that no notice has been given to the Board before re-
determining the amount of compensation as they were interested and
aggrieved party and the second contention is that as the award passed by the
Reference Court has been challenged by the Board by filing regular first
appeals, the Collector should have deferred the decision of the application
under Section 28A of the Act till the decision of regular first appeals as no
notice was issued to the Board. The order passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector dated July 4, 2006 is liable to be set aside. In support of said
contention reliance has been placed on Babua Ram’s case (supra).
I have carefully considered the contentions of Mr.Riar and
gone through the ratio of the judgment of Babua Ram’s case (supra). One
of the questions which was involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Babua Ram’s case (supra) was as to who could be the person “interested”
and “aggrieved” in context to a claimant who had received compensation
without protest. The claim of the State counsel in said case was that only
that class of persons who would have received the compensation under
protest could be the aggrieved persons to avail all the rights to claim re-
determination of compensation and that Section 28A of the Act is
transitional one and does not apply to future awards. State had claimed that
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
[12]
the Collector when re-determined the compensation under Section 28A (2)
of the Act, the beneficial would be a person interested not having accepted
the award. Only such person becomes entitled to seek reference under
Section 28A (3) of the Act. So far as the petitioner Board is concerned, for
the purpose of Section 28A of the Act, it is neither a “person interested” nor
a “person aggrieved” by the award of the Collector, as simple reading of
Section 28A of the Act indicates that the said provision is meant for only
those persons whose land is covered by the same notification under Section
4 (1) of the Act and who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector but
they had not filed any application to the Collector under Section 18 of the
Act for reference. The said persons can claim the re-determination of the
amount of compensation when the Reference Court allows the other owners,
similarly circumstanced, any amount of compensation in excess of the
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The Board,
therefore, does not fall within the ambit of “interested person” or “aggrieved
person”. The word used “person interested” in Section 28A (2) of the Act
would not in the present case include the Board, as the Board was not even
impleaded as a party in Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the
Reference Court.
I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the
Board in the light of the ratio of the ruling of Babua Ram’s case (supra).
As the Board was not a party before the Reference Court or before the
Collector and it does not fall within the definition of an “interested person”
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
[13]
or “aggrieved person” under Section 28 (1) of the Act, it cannot derive the
benefit of judgment of Babua Ram’s case (supra).
I have minutely gone through the judgment of Babua Ram’s
case (supra) and appreciated the same in context to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, (2004) 2 SCC 362 and Government of Karnataka Vs. Smt.
Govara, 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC) 483, wherein it has been held that the
judgment of the Supreme Court should not be read as a statute and that a
judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more
should be read into it then what it actually says. The judgment must be
read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be
considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court. In the
same context, reference can be made to the State of Rajasthan v. Ganeshi
Lal, 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC) 275, wherein it was reiterated that reliance
on a decision without looking into the factual background of the case is
impermissible.
In view of the circumstances explained hereinbefore, the Board
cannot be considered to be a “person interested” or “aggrieved” under
Section 28(1) of the Act.
So far as the contention of Mr.Riar that the award of Reference
Court has been carried in appeals as such it was obligatory for the Collector
to keep the applications for re-determination of compensation received
within limitation, pending awaiting the decision by the Appellate forum has
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
[14]
no force. He argued that the compensation should be re-determined only on
the basis of the final judgment and decree.
I have carefully considered the said contention but I do not find
any force in the same because in the circumstances of the present case when
the application under Section 28A of the Act was filed by the claimant-
petitioners on June 22, 2005, on that date the regular first appeals had not
been filed by the Board or the State. The RFA No.4523/2006 which is
stated to be pending alongwith other regular first appeals, was filed in the
year 2006 whereas the applications were field by the petitioners in June
2005, much before the filing of the first appeals. It was not expected from
the Collector exercising jurisdiction under Section 28A of the Act to wait
for the decision of the appeals which had not even been filed by the time he
decided the applications.
In view of this, the revision petitions filed by the Board are
thus dismissed. However, taking into consideration the import of the
judgment in Babua Ram’s case (supra) that the compensation under
Section 28A of the Act has to be re-determined on the basis of the final
judgment and decree, a direction is issued that the award already passed by
the Collector on July 4, 2006 would be subject to the final decision of the
appeals against the Reference order dated April 21, 2005. It will be open to
the Authority executing the Award under Section 28A of the Act to impose
any condition upon the claimants- petitioners before disbursement of the
enhanced compensation to secure the rights of the State.
August 20, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [15] sanjay JUDGE