Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
N.K. Agarwal, J.
DEVSINGH @ SHANKAR : Applicant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. : Respondent
Civil Revision No. 173 of 2012
Decided on : 9-11-2012
Land Acquisition Act - Legality and propriety of the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Collector - The Collector's rejection of the applicant's application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation was found to be without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The matter was remitted back to the Collector for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant's application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation was rejected by the Collector. The legality and propriety of this rejection was under review.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector's rejection of the application was without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The matter was remitted back to the Collector for appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Issues: Legality and propriety of the Collector's rejection of the applicant's application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Collector, under Section 18 of the Act, is only required to see whether the application filed is in accordance with the law. The adequacy of compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Act is within the domain of the Court, not the Collector.
Final Decision: The civil revision was allowed, the order dated 19.03.2012 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Collector for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon in Revenue Case No. 37-B/121/2010-11 whereby the applicant's application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") has been rejected is under assail in the instant revision.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition under Section 11 of the Act, applicant has moved an application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation by the Court.
3. The Collector vide order impugned dismissed the above application holding compensation awarded is not inadequate.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.
5. As per under Section 18 of the Act, Collector has only to see whether or not the application filed under Section 18 of the Act is in accordance with law. Once it is found that the application made is in accordance with law, then the Collector is bound to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation. He himself is not empowered to examine the adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by it under Section 11 of the Act, it is in the domain of the Court.
6. In view of above, the order of Collector, on the face, is without I jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.
7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the civil revision is allowed. Order impugned dated 19.03.2012 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of observations made hereinabove.
8. No order as to costs.
Revision Allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
