Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Jt. Collector And Land Acquisition ... on 12 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)MPLJ575
Author: Shambhoo Singh
Bench: Shambhoo Singh
ORDER B.A. Khan, J.
1. Respondent No. three's land measuring 1.574 hectares covered by survey No. 137/1 and situate at village Sukhniwas was acquired for Advanced Technology Centre. Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per hectare to him and other land holders. Unlike others he failed to seek reference under Section 18 of L. A. Act. In one of such references (Ref. No. 149/90) Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 30,000/- per hectare to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Prompted by this, respondent No. 3 made an application to the Collector under Section 28A for re-determination of compensation amount. Collector allowed his application and awarded Rs. 50,000/- per acre to him also.
2. Appellant-Union filed W.P. No. 1244/97 to assail this which was dismissed by Writ Court vide order dated 16-2-1998 holding that he could have taken a reference to the District Court under Section 18 even though award was passed by Collector under Section 28A. The case of appellant is that Writ Court order was bad because remedy of reference under Section 18 was not available to it. Therefore all that remained to be seen was whether appellant could have sought reference to District Court under Section 18 in place of Writ Petition.
3. Appellant's case is that only a "person interested" in the compensation of land who had not accepted the award could seek reference and Appellant Union could not as it was not a "person interested". This was supported by definition of word "person interested" in Section 3(b)(g) of the Act which included all persons claiming an interest in compensation of land. He also supported this by provisions of Section 54 which provided that Union could take appeal only against the award passed by the Court and not the one passed by Collector under Section 28.
4. Though appellant had invoked aid of various provisions to prove the point, reference required to be made to few sections only to resolve the controversy. Of these provisions of Sections 3(b), 18, 28A and 54 assumed importance.
5. A cursory look at the provisions of LAA would show that Part I is preliminary and includes a definition clause. Part II deals with acquisition process and Part III, with reference to the court and procedure thereon. The process to compulsorily acquire the private land for public purpose commences with public notice under Section 4 notification and ends with passing the award of compensation by Land Acquisition Authority under Section 11. During this any "person interested" in the land enjoys certain rights and safeguards. Such person can file objections to the award and seek' hearing under Section 5A. Similarly he/she may refuse to accept the award under Section 18 and require that matter be referred by Collector to Civil Court for determination of his objections regarding measurement of land, amount of compensation payable and its apportionment thereof. In that case the Court cannot award compensation less than that awarded by Collector under Section 11. Where the court allows more compensation than awarded by Collector to one in a reference under Section 18, others could also seek re- determination of their compensation even though they had not sought any reference under Section 18. They can do so in terms of Section 28A which provides for re-determination of the amount of compensation in such cases. But the problem arises where land acquiring agency fails to accept such re- determination. What is the remedy available in such a situation. Could it seek reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 and take appeal under Section 54.
6. A perusal of these sections read with definition clause Section 3(b) shows that it cannot do so. Section 3(b) says that expression "interested person" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation of land. Similarly Section 18 enables only a "person interested" to seek reference to Civil Court, if such person does not accept the award with regard to measurement of land, amount of compensation or its apportionment. Likewise Section 54 provides for an appeal against the award passed by the court and not the Collector.
7. Viewed thus it cannot be said that appellant Union was an "interested person" within the meaning of the expression and thus could not seek a reference against the re-determination of compensation ordered by Collector under Section 28A. Such reference was available only against the award passed by Collector under Section 11 and that too to an interested person. Nor was the remedy of appeal available to it under Section 54, Once it was rendered remedyless under the statute it could surely invoke extra ordinary Writ Jurisdiction of the court to assail Collector's order under Section 28A of the Act.
8. We accordingly hold that appellant Union could not have sought reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of L.A.A., as it was not a "person interested" within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Act. Nor could it have taken any appeal against the orders passed by Collector under Section 54 which appeal was only available against an award passed by the Court and not Collector. Therefore, once it was rendered remedyless it could take recourse to Writ Jurisdiction of the Court to question re-determination of compensation by the Collector under Section 28A. Consequently Writ Court order dismissing appellant's writ petition naturally cannot sustain and is set aside.
9. Having held so it transpires that connected Appeals taken against the award passed by Reference Court, stood already remanded to that Court for reconsideration and fresh appropriate orders. That takes away the basis of the order passed by Collector under Section 28A and throws open the reference proceedings under Section 18 for all interested persons who had sought reference against the award passed by the Collector under Section 11. Though respondent No. 3 had not sought such reference, it would be innocuous and just to allow him to do so. That alone could balance scales of justice and ensure fair and equal treatment to him. It is on appreciation of this position that both sides agreed to the disposal of this appeal by the following consent order:-
"Writ Court order is set-aside and W.P. No. 1244//97 disposed off. Respondent No. 3 may make an application before the appropriate District Court seeking reference under Section 18 within four weeks from today and on so doing Reference Court shall allow him to participate in the proceedings and to lead evidence notwithstanding any plea of limitation involved and dispose off the matter on merits along with other pending reference applications on the subject matter. Status quo to be maintained in respect of amount payable to him under orders passed by Collector under Section 28 subject to outcome of award to be passed by the Reference Court."