{"id":42975,"date":"2006-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-01T23:48:13","modified_gmt":"2018-10-01T18:18:13","slug":"collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU            \n CIA No. 22 of 1999\n\n Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basoli\n   Petitioner\n\n Sunit Sharma & ors \nRespondents  \n! Sh. A. H. Qazi, Additional Advocate General for the Appellants.\n^ Sh. D. R. Khajuria, Advocate for the Respondents.\n\nCoram \nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH     \n Dated : 26\/04\/2006\n\n: JUDGMENT :  \n<\/pre>\n
1.      Aggrieved by award dated 18.02.1999 of learned District Judge, Kathua, on a
\nreference under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, awarding
\ncompensation for seven kanals under survey No.1386 at the rate of Rupees sixteen
\nthousand per kanal and for two kanals and eleven marlas (2 K 11 M) at the rate of
\nRupees eight thousand per kanal alongwith solatium at the rate of 15 %  and interest
\nat the rate of 6% per annum, Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basoli,
\nhas filed this appeal questioning the finding of the District Judge awarding enhanced
\ncompensation to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.      During the pendency of this appeal, appellant’s counsel pointed out that
\nrespondent, Amrit Paul, had passed away in 1997 and award made by the learned
\nDistrict Judge without impleading legal representatives of the deceased respondent
\nas respondents in the proceedings, stood vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Sh. Qazi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the award made by
\nthe learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the State Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act), was
\nnullity in law because the same had been passed in favour of a dead person and the
\nlegal representatives of the deceased respondent having omitted to get themselves
\nimpleaded as party respondents in the reference proceedings were disentitled to
\ncontest the present appeal of the appellant.  Learned counsel further submits that
\nreference proceedings under the State Land Acquisition Act are civil proceedings,
\ngoverned by the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXII of the Code, was, thus,
\napplicable to the proceedings with all its rigour. Omission of the legal representatives
\nof the deceased respondent to file an application before the learned District Judge for
\ntheir impleadment as party respondents, would result in abatement of the reference
\nunder Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, debarring the legal representatives
\nto take benefit of the award made in favour of the deceased respondent, which award
\naccording to the learned counsel was nullity in law.  Relying on Section 51 of the
\nState Land Acquisition Act and Rule 59 of the Land Acquisition Rules for Public
\nPurposes, learned counsel seeks to invoke Order XXII of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, to support his submission that reference proceedings had since abated. He
\nconsequently seeks the annulment of the award by allowing the appeal of the
\nappellant. Mr. Qazi relies on ‘Mst. Ram Piari and others  V\/s  The Union of India’
\nreported as AIR 1978 Delhi 129; ‘State of West Bengal V\/s Dwijendra Chandra Sen’
\nreported as AIR 1979 Calcutta 182; and ‘Shrimati Dhani Devi and others  V\/s
\nCollector, Land Acquisition, Talwara and another’ reported as AIR 1982 Himachal
\nPradesh 42.\n<\/p>\n
4.      Sh. D. R. Khajuria, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased-
\nAmrit Paul, on the other hand, submits that the Code of Civil Procedure is not
\napplicable to the proceedings before District Judge on a reference made by the
\nCollector and omission of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to get
\nthemselves impleaded as party respondents in the reference proceedings would not
\nresult in  abatement of the proceedings because the proceedings on reference under
\nSections 18\/31 of the State Land Acquisition Act are not governed by the provisions
\nof Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Learned counsel submits that
\ninvoking Order XXII to the reference proceedings would be doing violence to the
\nexpression ‘save in so far as they may be inconsistent with any thing contained in
\nthis Act’ occurring in Section 51.  Learned counsel submits that the Legislature had
\nnot intended the reference proceedings to be governed by all the provisions of Code
\nof Civil Procedure and it was for this reason that procedure for trial of a reference
\nhas been specifically prescribed in part III of the Land Acquisition Act, which part
\ndoes not contemplate impleadment of legal representatives of deceased applicant
\nseeking reference to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in the reference
\nproceedings.  Learned counsel refers to ‘Abdul Karim and another V\/s  State of
\nMadhya Pradesh through the Collector, Bilaspur’ reported as AIR 1964 Madhya
\nPradesh 171; and ‘Shyam Shankar Sahai and others V\/s State of Bihar’ reported as
\nAIR 1974 Patna 176 besides a judgment of this Court in ‘Tej Ram and others  V\/s
\nCollector Land Acquisition Railways, Jammu and ors’  reported as 1985 KLJ 133.\n<\/p>\n
5.      I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused
\nthe cited case law and gone through the records of the case.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Before dealing with the question of law raised by learned counsel for the
\nappellant, I will, in brief, state the facts leading to the controversy raised in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Pursuant to a requisition of Executive Engineer, Project Division (I.B) Ranjit
\nSagar Dam (Thein Dam) Project Shahpurkandi Township, Punjab, dated 29.03.1985,
\nprocess for acquisition of land measuring 10028 kanals and 10 marlas was initiated,
\nand finally land measuring 9255 kanals 16 marlas was acquired and a final award
\nissued under No.TDP\/LA\/5-10 dated 06.04.1994.  This award included land
\nmeasuring nine kanals eleven marlas ( 9K 11 M) comprised in Survey
\nNo.1386, which belonged to one Amrit Paul, son of Meenku, resident of Basohli.
\nAmrit Paul feeling aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded by the
\nCollector, filed an application before Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam
\nProject, Basohli, on 17.05.1994, seeking reference to District Judge, Kathua.
\nAccording to the applicant, the kind of soil of his land was ‘Warhal Awal’ whereas
\nthe compensation had been awarded treating this land as ‘Banjar Qadeem’.  Satisfied
\nwith the requirement of Law, the Collector made reference to learned District Judge,
\nKathua, vide his No.TDP\/LA\/6-Kothi\/906-11 dated 09.03.1995.  After the
\nappearance of the parties before the District Judge, they were put to following
\nissues:-\n<\/p>\n
“1.     Whether the kind of land acquired is Warhal-Aval and
\nwrongly the     respondent has assessed compensation for
\nBanjar Qadeem ? O.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
2.      In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what is the
\njust and correct        compensation of the land acquired ?
\nO.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Relief.”\n<\/p>\n
8.      What needs to be noticed is that Amrit Paul was represented by his attorney
\nbefore learned District Judge, Kathua, who had engaged an advocate to prosecute the
\ncause of his principal Amrit Paul.  It comes out from the records that after recording
\nevidence on behalf of the claimant, the same was closed on 16.07.1997.  Collector
\nappeared as its own witness on 24.11.1997 and thereafter no evidence appears to
\nhave been led by the Collector and ultimately the same was closed on 11.08.1998.  It
\nfurther comes out from the records that Amrit Paul had completed all his evidence,
\nwhich he wanted to produce before the District Court prior to his death.\n<\/p>\n
9.      It further appears that during the currency of the reference proceedings,
\nneither the advocate representing Amrit Paul nor his attorney brought the factum of
\nthe death of Amrit Paul to the notice of the Court, which, it so appears from the
\napplication filed by the Collector in this Court, had taken place somewhere in
\nJanuary, 1997.  Parties having not brought the factum of death of Amrit Paul to the
\nnotice of the District Court and unaware about the death of Amrit Paul, the Court
\nappears to have decided the reference vide its award impugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10.     The appellant filed appeal in this Court arraying Amrit Paul, deceased, alone
\nas respondent and on coming to know about the death of Amrit Paul, filed CMP
\nNos.76\/2000 and 77\/2000 on 03.04.2000, seeking condonation of delay in filing
\napplication for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent and
\npermission for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent
\nrespectively.  These applications were allowed by the Court by order dated
\n19.10.2000, which reads, thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“I have taken up the CMP seeking condonation of delay in
\nfiling the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case I allow this
\nCMP.\n<\/p>\n
CMP NO:77\/2000 has been filed for bringing on record the
\nlegal heirs of deceased respondent.  Mr. Khajuria appearing for
\nthe legal heirs has no objections to this CMP.  CMP is
\naccordingly allowed and legal heirs are ordered to be brought
\non record in place of the deceased respondent.  Index be
\nchanged. Mr. D. R. Khajuria appears for all the heirs.\n<\/p>\n
11.     In the the background of above facts, I will now deal with the issue raised by
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12.      A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in a case ‘Mst. Ram Piari and others V\/s
\nThe Union of India’ reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 129, while considering a similar
\nissue, held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“18.    A combined reading of Ss. 18 to 26 of the Act, noted
\nabove, does not show that any obligation is cast on the Court to
\nmake an award on the failure of the applicant, at whose
\ninstance reference is made, to adduce evidence to challenge the
\nquantum of compensation offered to him by the Collector or
\nlay a challenge that the measurement taken by the Collector in
\nrespect of the land or property acquired was not properly made.
\nIn such a case the Court is not to embark upon an enquiry on its
\nown volition nor it is the duty of the Collector to adduce
\nevidence before the Court to justify the award made by him.
\nOn a party laying challenge to the award made by the Collector
\nretreating from the reference during the proceedings before the
\nCourt, no obligation is cast on the Court to make an award.\n<\/p>\n
19.     As noted earlier S. 21 of the Act restricts the scope of
\nthe enquiry to a consideration of the interests of the persons at
\nwhose behest the Collector makes the reference on their
\napplying to the Collector to make the reference.  That being so,
\nit is incumbent on them to pursue their claim as provided under
\nthe Act.  In the event of the death of a person at whose instance
\nthe reference was made the right to continue the reference
\nsurvives to his legal representatives.  It is for the legal
\nrepresentatives if they choose to purse the reference to apply to
\nthe Court for being brought on the record to enable them to
\nprosecute the reference.  No obligation is cast on the Collector
\nto furnish the names and addresses of the legal representatives
\nof a deceased claimant to keep the reference alive.  The
\nreference is to be answered and an award given by the Court
\nonly on evidence being produced before it by the claimant who
\nchallenges the award given by the Collector.  If no evidence is
\nled the reference has to be declined.  The provisions of the Act
\ndo not cast any obligation on the Collector to justify his award.
\nIt is only when a claimant produces evidence before the Court
\nand succeeds in showing that the award made by the Collector
\nis inadequate that the Collector is to lead evidence in rebuttal.
\nThe Act itself does not prescribe the procedure applicable to
\nthe proceedings before the Court while hearing a reference
\napplication.  Sec. 53 of the Act, however, makes the provisions
\nof the Code applicable to these proceedings.  Accordingly the
\nprocedure laid down in the Code has to be followed by the
\nCourt in deciding a reference application.\n<\/p>\n
20.     The procedure laid down in the Code being applicable
\nto these proceedings, it cannot be urged that the applicability of
\nthe provisions of Order 9 and Order 22 of the Code are not
\nattracted to the proceedings in the Court.”\n<\/p>\n
13.        A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court took a similar view in ‘State of
\nWest Bengal  V\/s Dwijendra Chandra Sen’ reported as AIR 1979 Calcutta 182, and
\nheld as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“12.    By virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act the
\nprovisions of Civil P.C. are applicable to all proceedings before
\nthe Court under the Act unless such provision in the Code is
\ninconsistent with anything contained in the Act.  Any provision
\nin the Land Acquisition Act would not appear directly to be
\ninconsistent with the principle of substitution under Order 22
\nof the Civil Procedure Code.  The reference under that Act
\ncannot be regarded in any way different from an ordinary Civil
\nProceeding.  In this view of the matter, a reference under
\nSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act or an appeal arising out
\nof an award would be attracted by Order 22 of the Civil
\nProcedure Code.  The Gujarat High Court in the case of
\nAlihusain Abbasbhai v. Collector, Panch Mahals, reported in
\nAIR 1967 Guj 118, had occasion to consider the case reported
\nin AIR 1964 Madh Pra 171.  Bhagwati, J. (his Lordship as he
\nthen was) was unable to accept the decision as correct.  That
\ndecision , according to him, proceeds on the hypothesis that
\nonce a reference is made by the Collector, it must of necessity
\nterminate in an award of the Court and on that hypothesis it
\nworks out the conclusion that even if the applicant does not
\nappear or produce evidence in support of the objection, the
\nreference cannot be dismissed but an award must be made even
\nthough such award be in the same terms as the award of the
\nCollector and equally if the applicant dies and his heirs do not
\nmake an application to bring themselves on record, the
\nreference cannot abate, but the collector must supply the names
\nof the heirs to the Court and the Court must give notice of the
\nreference to the heirs and then proceed to make an award,
\nwhich in the absence of evidence in support of the objection
\nmay be in the same terms as the award of the Collector.  This
\nconclusion is clearly not justified by the scheme and language
\nof the Sections.  But though the provisions of the Civil
\nProcedure Code were found to be applicable in a proceeding
\nunder S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.”\n<\/p>\n
14.         A Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in ‘Shrimati Dhani Devi
\nand ors V\/s Collector, Land Acquisition, Talwara and another’ reported as AIR 1982
\nHimachal Pradesh 42, too, held that provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil
\nProcedure were applicable to the proceedings on reference under Section 18 of the
\nAct and it cannot be said that once a reference has been made the Court is bound to
\ngive an award even though the necessary party is not before the Court.  Paragraph 17
\nof this judgment reads, thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“17.    We do not agree with the view that once a reference
\nhas been made the Court is bound to give an award.  The
\nscheme of the Act is that the Collector makes an award which
\nis an offer to the claimant whose land has been acquired.  If the
\noffer is accepted the matter ends.  But if the claimant does not
\naccept the offer, he has a right to have the compensation
\njudiciously determined.  For this he has to make an application
\nunder S. 18 of the Act asking the Collector to make a reference
\nto the Court.  In this application he is required to state the
\ngrounds on which objection to the award is taken.  The
\nCollector is required to give the necessary information
\nmentioned in S. 19 of the Act to the Court while making a
\nreference.  Once the reference is registered by the Court it is
\nrequired to serve a notice on the applicant and others.  In other
\nwords, proceedings start before the Court when it takes
\ncognizance of the reference by registering it.  Since the
\napplicant has raised objections to the award made by the
\nCollector, it is but natural that he should support his objections.
\nBut in case the applicant disappears from the scene, what
\nshould the Court do?  Under S. 26 of the Act the Court, while
\nmaking its award, is required amongst others, to give the
\ngrounds of awarding each amount.  In the absence of the
\napplicant the Court cannot justify the amount awarded by the
\nCollector on the ground that applicant is no more interested in
\nsupporting the objections raised by him.  In these
\ncircumstances relevant provisions of the Code, which are not
\ninconsistent with the Act, can be made applicable because of S.
\n53 of the Act.  There is nothing in the Act which militates
\nagainst the legal representatives of the deceased applicant
\nbeing required to be brought on record so that the proceedings
\ncan continue.  The provisions of O. 22, in our judgment, are
\napplicable to the proceedings on reference under the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
15.     View taken by their Lordships of Delhi, Calcutta and Himachal Pradesh High
\nCourts in the aforementioned decisions holding applicability of Order XXII of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure to proceedings on Collector’s reference under Section 18\/31
\nbefore the Court, in my opinion, with due respect to the learned Judges, may not be
\ncorrect exposition of law on the subject in issue.\n<\/p>\n
        I would like to look at the issue from a different angle.
\n        Compulsory acquisition of land contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act
\nmay not be complete unless finality is attached to the award of the Collector under
\nSection 12 of the Land Acquisition Act.  Finality contemplated by Section 12 of the
\nAct would become absolute with issuance of an award under Section 26 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act in case a reference was made by Collector under Sections 18\/31 of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act.  Passing of an award by the Court under Section 26 of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, in the event of a reference by the Collector, would, thus, be the
\nsine-qua-non for conclusion of compulsory acquisition proceedings vesting
\nownership rights of the acquired property in the State and simultaneously divesting
\nthe owner of its rights in the acquired property.  A reference made by a Collector
\nunder Sections 18\/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Court, thus, requires to be
\nnecessarily answered regardless of the appearance of the interested parties before it
\nafter the receipt of notice contemplated by Section 20 of the Act.  Service of notice
\nunder Section 20 of the Act on the interested persons\/parties, on the basis of
\ninformation supplied by the Collector in this behalf, places the ball in the court of the
\nCourt, which has then to proceed to answer it, on consideration of factors mentioned
\nin clauses First to Sixthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.  Consideration
\ncontemplated by Section 23 of the Act may be made on the information and records
\nsupplied by the Collector in its statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition
\nAct, regardless of the appearance or otherwise of the interested parties before the
\nCourt on the day fixed by it to determine the objection and for answering the
\nreference.\n<\/p>\n
        Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code in itself prescribing
\nthe procedure, to be followed by the Court while dealing with a reference under
\nSections 18\/31 of the Land Acquisition Act.  Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act
\nopens with the caption “Reference to Court and procedure thereon”.  There is, thus,
\nno scope for introducing all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in this self
\ncontained Code, for, such a course may be fraught with consequences affecting
\nadversely the intention of the Legislature in enacting Part-III and other provisions of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act.  Reading all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nin the Land Acquisition Act would render the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
\nineffective and meaningless.  Such provisions of the Code, which work against
\nattaching finality to the acquisition proceedings contemplated by the Land
\nAcquisition Act, cannot, in my opinion, be said to apply to proceedings on Collector’s
\nreference before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
16.     Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 59 of the Land Acquisition
\nRules, contemplate the application of only those provisions of Code of Civil
\nProcedure to the proceedings before the Court on Collector’s reference, which may be
\nnecessary for completion of the proceedings.  While dealing with a Collector’s
\nreference the Court may apply the provisions of Order XLVI of the Code rather than
\ntreating the reference, as a suit or application under the Code of Civil Procedure.
\nOrder XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, is one such provision of the Code, which
\nmay in the event of non impleading of legal representatives of a deceased party, result
\nin abatement of the proceedings.  Rigour of Order XXII of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure may not, thus, be conducive to the provisions of the State Land Acquisition
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
        In order to give true meaning and affect to the provisions of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, I would hold that rigour of abatement contemplated by Order XXII
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to the proceedings on a Collector’s
\nreference before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.     I am supported in my view by a Single Bench judgment of this Court in ‘Tej
\nRam and ors  V\/s  Collector, Land Acquisition Railways, Jammu and ors’ reported as
\n1985 KLJ 133, where His Lordship, Justice K. K. Gupta, observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “4.     The District Judge has rejected the application of the
\nappellants mainly on the ground that it was filed late.  It is to
\nbe seen and noted in proceedings under the Land Acquisition
\nAct that once a reference is made by the Collector, the Court
\nhas to make an award, no matter whether the person at whose
\ninstance the reference has been made appears or fails to appear
\nbefore the Court or fails to produce evidence in support of his
\nobjections.  There cannot be any dismissal or abatement of
\nreference proceedings. In case of death of a person at whose
\ninstance the reference has been made, it becomes the duty of
\nthe Collector to supply the Court the names and addresses of
\nthe legal representatives of the deceased-claimant to enable the
\nCourt to issue fresh notices to them.  As it appears from the
\ncontents of the application filed by the appellants, they came to
\nknow about the proceedings vary late, it was the duty of the
\nCourt to substitute them for the deceased and then to proceed
\nin accordance with law.  The question of Limitation does not
\ncome under such circumstances at all.”\n<\/p>\n
18.     This takes me to the merits of Collector’s appeal against the award of the
\nDistrict Judge.  The only issue on which the learned District Judge has awarded
\ncompensation in favour of the respondent is that from the evidence of the parties, it
\nstood established that only two kanals eleven marlas ( 2K 11M) of the acquired land
\nwas Banjar Qadeem whereas rest seven kanals of land was recorded as Warhal Awal
\nin the Revenue Records.  This position had been admitted both by the Collector as
\nalso by the Patwari, the official witnesses who had appeared before the learned
\nDistrict Judge.\n<\/p>\n
19.     In view of the admission of the Collector and Patwari regarding type of land
\nfalling under acquisition, no fault may be found with the Award of learned District
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
20.     There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed with
\ncosts quantified at Rupees five thousand.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        (J. P. Singh)
\n                                                                             Judge
\nJammu
\n26.04.2006
\nNarinder.\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIA No. 22 of 1999 Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basoli Petitioner Sunit Sharma & ors Respondents ! Sh. A. H. Qazi, Additional Advocate General for the Appellants. ^ Sh. D. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCollector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3800,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006"},"wordCount":3800,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006","name":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India' on 26 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T18:18:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-land-acquisition-vs-the-union-of-india-on-26-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Land Acquisition vs The Union Of India’ on 26 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}