JUDGMENT
D.G. Karnik, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision applicants and learned A.G.P., for the respondents.
2. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the facts in all these revision applications are identical except in case of Civil Revision Application Nos. 104/2004 and 109/2004. Hence, by consent of all, the said two revision applications are separated and remaining revision applications are heard and decided by this common judgment.
3. In all these revision applications, the revision applicants challenge the orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur who exercising the powers of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), rejected the applications made by the revision applicants under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the cases to the District Court for determination of the amount of compensation.
4. A devastating earthquake struck eastern part of Maharashtra on 30th September, 1993 and several houses in many villages situated in District Latur were destroyed. It was necessary to rehabilitate thousands of earthquake affected persons and construct some shelter for them. The Government swung into action and decided to construct houses for the earthquake affected people. Several persons voluntarily came forward for help and many offered their lands to the Government for rehabilitation of the earthquake affected people, present revision applicants are some of such persons who offered their lands for construction of houses for rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons. It appears that the applicants had agreed to receive small amount of compensation for their lands. Accordingly proceedings for acquisition of the lands of the revision applicants were commenced and a notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published simultaneously on 7th January, 1994 and the possession of the lands of the revision applicants was also taken on the same day, by their consent. As the revision applicants had agreed to offer their lands for rehabilitation and agreed to receive small amount of compensation, the Government of Maharashtra passed a resolution on 29th October, 1993 prescribing the procedure to be followed for entering into individual agreements with the persons who had offered their lands for rehabilitation of the earthquake affected people. Under the said Government Resolution, powers were given to the Collector to enter into necessary agreements under Section 11(2) of the Act with the persons whose lands were acquired. By an order dated 5th January, 1994 the Collector, Latur. in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A of the Act delegated his powers to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purna Prakalpa, Latur. Negotiations were held between the revision applicants and the Government authorities and revision applicants agreed to receive certain amount of compensation for their lands. Necessary agreements in writing were also executed by them and a copy of one of such agreements dated 15th February, 1994, executed between Kausappa Shivling Swamy and the Collector, Latur is handed in by Shri Hon, learned Counsel for the revision applicants. Learned Counsel for the parties state that similar agreements were entered into by all the revision applicants and this agreement may be taken as standard specimen of the agreements. A schedule was annexed to each of the agreements and in column 9 of the schedule, the total compensation which was agreed to be paid by the State Government and agreed to be received by the revision applicants was mentioned. In pursuance of these agreements entered into between the revision applicants and the Collector, two consent awards were passed on 29th March, 1994. By the consent award the compensation as was agreed upon between the parties in the agreement under Section 11(2) of the Act was declared to be payable to the revision applicants for the lands.
5. It appears that after publication of the awards, revision applicants resiled from philanthropy and decided to claim enhanced compensation. They therefore made applications purportingly to be under Section 18 of the Act to the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to make a reference to the District Court for determination of the amount of compensation. By separate orders passed on 30th August, 2003, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purna Prakalp, Latur exercising the powers of the Collector declined to make references on the grounds that the awards were passed in pursuance of the agreements under Section 11(2) of the Act. These orders are impugned In these revision applications.
6. Whenever a land is to be acquired under the Act, the Collector after holding inquiry is required to make an award as to the true area of the land and the compensation which should be allowed for the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act which is material for the decision of these revision applications, reads as under :-
(2) Not-Withstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1). if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.
7. It is thus clear that holding of an enquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 is dispensed with if the parties have agreed to the matters which are! required to be decided by the Collector after holding enquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 and enter into a written agreement to that effect. One of the things which is required to be agreed by the parties is the compensation to be paid for the acquired lands. If the compensation is agreed upon by the parties, it is not necessary for the Collector to hold an enquiry as to what would be the market value of the land on the date of issuance of notification, but the Collector would be entitled to award compensation in accordance! with the agreement between the parties. Section 18 of the Act provides that j when the person interested has riot accepted the award, he would be entitled to apply to the Collector for making a reference to the District Court for determination of the amount of compensation. In my view, there would be no necessity of making a reference to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation for the acquired lands where the award is passed on the basis of an agreement passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. It is settled principle of law that, an award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act is an offer of price. A person is entitled to accept the compensation offered under protest and then apply for making of a reference to the District Court for determination of the compensation. When a person enters into an agreement under Section 11(2), the award cannot be regarded as an offer which may or may not be accepted by the person whose land is acquired because he has entered into an agreement regarding the amount of compensation. The Collector would therefore be right in declining to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act where the award is based upon an agreement made under Section 11(2) of the Act.
8. Relying upon a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Rajendra Narking Ghodke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Civil Revision Application Nos. 8 of 2002 to 17 of 2002, decided on 26.4.2002 (Coram : N.V. Dabholkar, J.), Shri Hon, learned Counsel for the revision applicants contends that despite agreement under Section 11(2) of the Act, this Court had directed making of a reference for determination of the amount of compensation to the Collector in those cases. He therefore submits that in the instance cases also, such a reference ought to be made. The said case is distinguishable on facts. In paragraph 4 of the said Judgment, this Court has observed :
Advocate Shri Sakolkar pointed out that the file produced indicates that owners of three lands were not available for signing the consent and therefore the award passed cannot be said to be consent award.
It appears that in that case, all the owners or persons interested in the land were not available for signing a consent, and had not signed the agreement. Therefore, tills Court, came to the conclusion that the awards could not be said to be a valid awards under Section 11[2] of the Act and ordered to make reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the present case, learned Counsel for the revision applicants submits that, except the applicants in Civil Revision Application Nos. 104/2004 and 109/2004, all the land owners have signed the agreement and therefore these eases are not required to be referred to the District Court for determination of compensation. As all the land owners have signed the agreements, the decision of this Court in case of Rajendra Narsing Ghodke (supra) is not applicable.
9. Shri Hon. then contends that the Government Resolution dated 29th October, 1933 has not been strictly followed. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Babaji Kondaji Garadand Ors. v. Nasik Merchants Co opera live Bank Ltd. Nasik and Ors. the submits that if a thing has been done contrary to what is permitted in the Statute, the same is invalid. There can be no doubt about the proposition that if the Statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, or not all. The case is however distinguishable in as much as Section 11(2) of the Act. which is a statutory provision, only requires an agreement to be in writing in the form prescribed by the rules made by the appropriate Government. In the present ease, the agreement is in writing. It is signed by the parties. The agreement was executed before the Collector and bears the signature of both the District Rehabilitation Officer as well as the Collector. Merely because the agreement is said to have been signed by the District Rehabilitation Officer in addition to the Collector, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the Government Resolution elated 29th October, 1993 was not followed. In any event, it was not statutory procedure prescribed by the rules. It was a procedure prescribed for exigencies of immediate acquisition of the land arising out of an unprecedential situation of a large scale devastation by the earthquake.
10. In Ishwarlal Premchand Shall and Ors. v. State of Gujrat and Ors. the Apex Court has held that it would be open for the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2) without a necessity to determine compensation under Section 23(1) in which event the award need not be passed. II separate award itself is not required to be passed, but only consent award is to be passed under Section 11(2), there would be no occasion for the person to request for making a reference for determination of the compensation at the hands of the District Court under Section 18 of the Act.
11. For these reasons, there is not merit in the revision applications which are hereby dismissed.