Point of Law: Sections 12 read as award of Collector when to be final.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This appeal has been preferred against award dated 22.2.2019 passed by Reference Court, i.e. Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. in LAC Petition RBT No. 39/2017/2013, titled as Ved Parkash Mittal Vs. LAC and another, whereby claim of the appellant, for enhancing the compensation has been rejected.

2. Undisputedly, land belonging to the petitioner, alongwith other land situated in Up Mohal Ram Nagar, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., was acquired by issuing Notification dated 19.12.1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) for public purpose, i.e. setting up industrial area.

3. After completing due process, Land Acquisition Collector had announced Award No. 1 of 1996 on 3.10.1996, determining the value of land, as mutually agreed between the State and land owners, at the rate of 10,000/- per Kanal without any interest etc. thereon. As per Award, it was decided in the negotiation meeting that no solatin and interest will be given.

4. It is case of the appellant that he is owner in possession of land to the extent of ¼th share in joint land holding comprised in Khata No. 71, Khatauni No. 119, Khasra Nos. 262 and 264, measuring 22111-25 hectares (57 Kanals 12 Marlas) situated in Up Mohal Ram Nagar, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. and out of the aforesaid land Government of Himachal Pradesh, through Industrial Department, had acquired 14367-50 hectares land compromised in Khasra No. 264 and entries to that effect had been made in the record of rights vide Intkal/Mutation No. 223, dated 13.5.1999.

5. It is further case of the appellant that he had no knowledge about acquisition as well as passing of aforesaid Award, as he, being permanent resident of House No. ET 775/2, Krishan Nagar, Jallandhar (Punjab), presently is residing at 99 Tara Crescent, Markham, Ontario, L3S4S8, Canada for the purpose of earning his livelihood since last 30 years from the filing of Reference Petition.

6. As per appellant, he was never served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, despite the fact that he had duly authorized representatives at his permanent place of residence at Jallandhar, but no such notice was ever issued to them and he was out of country for last 30 years and he had no access to newspapers having circulation in the area. Further that, Land Acquisition Collector did not take any tangible steps for his service either in person or through his representatives as provided under Section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, in absence of any notice of acquisition proceedings, appellant has a legal right to raise objection to the Award within six months from the date of acquiring knowledge. It is claim of the appellant that he acquired the knowledge about acquisition of his land four weeks back from January, 2013 when he obtained copies of revenue records and copy of Award dated 3.10.1996.

7. According to appellant, amount of compensation has been assessed and paid to all co-owners without taking into consideration the fact that some of these persons were not in possession of acquired portion of land but are enjoying the remaining portion of the joint holding and, therefore, they were not entitled to receive the compensation.

8. It is further claim of the appellant that because of acquisition in reference, his land holdings has been divided into pieces because of setting up of industrial area and adjacent land of the appellant has also been wasted and rendered useless for residential and agricultural purpose because of air, noise and water pollution and risk of fire. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector has not considered this aspect of matter while passing the impugned award, and thereby, depriving appellant from fair and just compensation for which he is legally entitled. It has further been claimed by appellant that land taken in possession is more than the land actually acquired and possession on the spot has been taken of a entirely different land a