Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Kumar (Died) Through L.Rs And ... vs Union Of India And Another on 18 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1994P&H140
ORDER
1. The request of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court having been declined by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have approached this Court through the present writ petition for the quashing of the two orders copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.2 and P.3. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The Union of India issued a notification under S. 4 of the Act on October 29, 1976, for establishment of a cantonment. The land of the two petitioners was also acquired. It is averred that the Land Acquisition Collector made the award determining compensation payable to the land owners for the land acquired under the above mentioned notification. The petitioners being poor, did not make any application for reference of the matter to the Land Acquisition Court under S. 18 of the Act. However, certain land owners not only got the references made but even went up to the Apex Court for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. The case was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide orders dated September 1, 1986. Their Lordships were inter alia pleased to observe as under :--
"We think that the ends of justice require that compensation shall be awarded to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 17/- per sq. yard up to the depth of 500 metres of the acquired land and at the rate of Rs. 10/- sq. yard beyond the depth of 500 metres. We may point out that the compensation fixed in this case shall not be treated as a precedent for determination of compensation in other cases. The consequential payments will also be made on the basis of this rate of compensation. The appeal is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs."
3. The petitioners made applications for re-determination of the amount of compensation under S. 28A on the basis of the above order of the Supreme Court. Their request was rejected vide orders dated November 21, 1990 on the ground that "the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable in this case. In the Civil Appeals Nos. 3142-65 of 1986 and S.L.F. Nos. 6701-23/84 and 9667/84 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in last para has ordered that the compensation fixed in this case shall not be treated as a precedent for determination of compensation in other cases." Aggrieved by these orders, the two petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. Petitioner No. I having expired during the pendency of the petition, her legal representatives were ordered to be impleaded vide order dated September 29, 1992.
4. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. In spite of the service of notice, no written statement was filed. The case had initially come up for hearing before this Court on June 3, 1993. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India had appeared and prayed for adjournment to enable him to obtain instructions and to file a written statement. In spite of the grant of opportunity, no written statement has been filed. Today, no one has even appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the petition.
5. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Section 28A enables a land owner to approach the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation in spite of the fact that an application under S. 18 had not been made at the relevant time. The provision appears to have been enacted with the sole object of ensuring parity of treatment in the I award of compensation to all land owners whose land has been acquired by the State through the same notification. A land owner who has been deprived of his property by an act of compulsory acquisition by the State may not be able to approach the competent authority for seeking a reference or pursue litigation at different levels. In spite of this, it confers a right on the land owner to approach the Collector within the specified period of three months from the date of the award for re-determination of the compensation. The provision embodies a principle of fair play and does away with any discretion with the Collector.
7. It is the undisputed position that the petitioners had approached the Collector within the prescribed period of three months.
Yet their prayer has been declined only on the basis of the observation in the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that "the compensation fixed in this case shall not be treated as a precedent for the determination of the compensation in other cases." This observation only implies that while deciding the cases, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not making a statement of law. It was not a declaration of law as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution. However, the fact remains that the Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 17 '-per square yard up to the depth of 500 metres and at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard beyond the depth of 500 metres. This was an award within the meaning of Section 28A. Other land owners were entitled to claim the re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of this award.
8. The view taken by the Special Land Acquisition Collector in declining the prayer of the two petitioners was based on a misreading of the orders of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the provisions of law. It cannot be sustained.
9. Consequently, the two impugned orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 are quashed. It is held that the petitioners shall be entitled to the award of compensation at the same rate at which it has been awarded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kapur Kaur's case. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.
10. Petition allowed.