A quasi judicial authority, having adjudicated an award, lacks locus standi to appeal against a reversal of its decision by a higher authority without explicit authorization.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 27.12.2010, passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land Reference Petition No. 5-S/4 of 1990, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P., issued notification, dated 30.05.1986, under Section 4 qua acquisition of the following land for the purpose of construction of NCC Complex and NCC Bhawan, Shimla:

2(a). The above Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in daily newspaper, i.e., Indian Express and Dainik Vir Partap, dated 09.08.1986 and 20.06.1986, respectively. After conclusion of the proceedings, as prescribed under the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded total compensation of Rs.1,98,697.50 qua the fruit trees, forest trees, structure and compensation of Rs.2,09,029.20 for the acquired land. As there was a dispute qua the title, thus a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act.

2(b). Petitioner/claimant Lt. Col. LHM Gregory (respondent No. 1 herein) averred that land was 5835.7 square yards, whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had wrongly awarded compensation for 4976.8 square yard. At the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the market value of the acquired land was Rs.1500/-per square yard. The compensation for the forest trees @ Rs.10,000/- per tree was claimed. The claimant further averred that Mrs. E.A. Lisbey had executed a Will in his favour and the entire compensation was payable to him. It was also averred that no Will was executed in favour of Smt. Sundri Devi by Mrs. E.A. Lisbey, thus respondents No. 3 to 6, i.e., Shri Sant Ram, Shri Mansa Ram, Shri Sita Ram and Shri Jagdish Chand (proforma respondents No. 3 to 6 herein) had no right title or interest over the property in question.

3. The learned Reference Court allowed the petition of the petitioner/claimant and held him entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.411/- per square yard alongwith all statutory benefits. Hence, the appellant/Collector preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 27.12.2010, passed by the learned Reference Court.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective and entirely based its findings on sale deeds, Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B, which, apparently do not pertain to the year 1986, when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. He further contended that the impugned award is also against the facts and law, thus the same deserves to be set-aside. He also contended that the impugned award is the result of surmises and conjectures, therefore, the same be set-aside by the allowing the instant appeal.

5. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. The learned counsel contended that as the appellant had passed award acting as a quasi judicial authority, he is not competent to maintain the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed on this count.

6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, learned