Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, R.N.Mittal and I.S.Tiwana JJ.
Sher Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ No. 5628 of 1981,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 3, 1982
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 18 - REFERENCE - FILING - DISPUTE - FACTUAL DETERMINATION - WRIT COURT JURISDICTION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - STRICT COMPLIANCE - MAINTENANCE OF PROPER RECORDS - MANDATORY - PROTEST AGAINST COMPENSATION - FILING OF REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner claimed that he had filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the compensation awarded for his land acquired for a military cantonment. The Collector denied receiving the reference and the petitioner sought a direction to file a fresh reference and condone the delay.
Finding of the Court:
1. The writ court is generally reluctant to determine disputed questions of fact, especially when the parties' positions are diametrically opposed. 2. The filing of a written application under Section 18 of the Act, within the prescribed limitation period, is a mandatory requirement for claiming enhancement of compensation. 3. The court cannot condone the delay in filing a reference under Section 18 without first determining whether an application was filed earlier. 4. The court cannot direct the filing of a fresh reference under Section 18 without a finding that an earlier application was filed. 5. The court cannot override the statutory requirements and procedures for filing a reference under Section 18. 6. The Collector is required to maintain a proper and true record of the receipt, transmission, and orders passed in references under Section 18. 7. The petitioner's claim that he had filed a reference under Section 18 cannot be conclusively presumed based on the absence of a clear-cut procedure and failure to maintain proper records by the Collector. 8. The District Judge has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of a reference under Section 18 and determine whether it was initiated in accordance with the law. 9. The acceptance of compensation by a landowner who has filed a reference under Section 18 does not constitute a waiver or withdrawal of the claim for enhancement. 10. Filing a valid application under Section 18 is itself a recorded protest against the compensation awarded, satisfying the requirement of protest under Section 31(2) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ court can determine the disputed question of fact regarding the filing of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Whether the court can condone the delay in filing a reference under Section 18 without first determining whether an earlier application was filed. 3. Whether the court can direct the filing of a fresh reference under Section 18 without a finding that an earlier application was filed. 4. Whether the court can override the statutory requirements and procedures for filing a reference under Section 18. 5. Whether the Collector is required to maintain a proper record of references under Section 18. 6. Whether the petitioner's claim that he had filed a reference under Section 18 can be conclusively presumed based on the absence of a clear-cut procedure and failure to maintain proper records by the Collector. 7. Whether the District Judge has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of a reference under Section 18. 8. Whether the acceptance of compensation by a landowner who has filed a reference under Section 18 constitutes a waiver or withdrawal of the claim for enhancement. 9. Whether filing a valid application under Section 18 is a sufficient protest against the compensation awarded, satisfying the requirement of protest under Section 31(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The writ court is generally reluctant to determine disputed questions of fact, especially when the parties' positions are diametrically opposed. 2. The filing of a written application under Section 18 of the Act, within the prescribed limitation period, is a mandatory requirement for claiming enhancement of compensation. 3. The court cannot condone the delay in filing a reference under Section 18 without first determining whether an application was filed earlier. 4. The court cannot direct the filing of a fresh reference under Section 18 without a finding that an earlier application was filed. 5. The court cannot override the statutory requirements and procedures for filing a reference under Section 18. 6. The Collector is required to maintain a proper and true record of the receipt, transmission, and orders passed in references under Section 18. 7. The petitioner's claim that he had filed a reference under Section 18 cannot be conclusively presumed based on the absence of a clear-cut procedure and failure to maintain proper records by the Collector. 8. The District Judge has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of a reference under Section 18 and determine whether it was initiated in accordance with the law. 9. The acceptance of compensation by a landowner who has filed a reference under Section 18 does not constitute a waiver or withdrawal of the claim for enhancement. 10. Filing a valid application under Section 18 is itself a recorded protest against the compensation awarded, satisfying the requirement of protest under Section 31(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioner was directed to file a proper application to the Collector, who would then refer the matter to the District Court for adjudication.
S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. Some vital facets pertaining to the filing of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and a divergence of judicial opinion thereon within this Court (albeit at the motion stage) has necessitated the admission of this set of three civil writ petitions to a Full Bench. Pointedly at issue are the conflicting observations of the Division Benches in Chanan Singh V/s. Union of India (C.W.P. 4229/1981 decided on 23rd Nov., 1981) and Hakam Singh V/s. Union of India, C.W.P. 2378/1981 decided on 9th Oct., 1981.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the issues may be briefly noticed from Sher Singh V/s. Union of India, C.W.P. 5628 of 1981. The petitioner owned agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Mehna Patti district Bhatinda jointly with his brother Bhag Singh which was acquired for the public purpose of establishing a military cantonment by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated the 9th Oct., 1974. In pursuance of the acquisition proceedings, the Collector announced his award on the 11th of June, 1975 at Bhatinda. It is averred that on the 19th of July, 1975, the petitioner specifically filed a reference under Section 18, Annexure-P-I, with the Collector at Bhatinda. He along with his brother Bhag Singh preferred other similar references also which were decided on the 29th Sept., 1979 and they duly received compensation therefor. Thereafter he made enquiries about the reference, Annexure-P-I, from the office of the Collector but was told that the same had been misplaced and despite repeated enquiries thereafter the aforesaid usual reply was given to him. Ultimately in the last week of November, 1981 he learnt that the aforesaid reference, Annexure-P-I, had not been forwarded to the District Judge, Bhatinda, and thus the respondent-Collector had failed to perform the statutory duty imposed upon him in this regard.
3. In the return filed on behalf of the respondent, it is admitted that land measuring 11 Bighas 19 Biswas was acquired for the Bhatinda Cantonment, but it is averred that the petitioner was not a co-owner in Khasra No. 2734/1 measuring 4 Bighas. It is then the case that the petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation due to him without protest. Particularly with regard to Annexure-P-1, it is the respondent s stand that no such reference was at all received in his office and therefore no question of tracing or forwarding the same to the District Judge arises. The legal stance taken on behalf of the petitioner is expressly controverted.
4. At the very threshold the respondent-Union of India has strenuously pressed its stand that in view of the categoric averments made on its behalf that no reference under Section 18 pertaining to the particular piece of land was ever received or traceable in the Collector s office, no cause of action whatsoever was disclosed in the writ petition. In buttressing this stand, Mr. H.S. Brar the learned counsel for the Union of India highlighted the fact that on the petitioner s own showing two other reference applications under Section 18 filed by the petitioner and his brother had not only been duly received but had been forwarded to the District Judge and in fact had been adjudicated upon way back in 1979. It was highlighted that hundreds of similar references under Sec.18 by other claimants had been duly received, diarised and then forwarded to the District Court and had been disposed of. Counsel submitted that the petitioner s alleged claim itself is that he had preferred the reference in July 1975 and it is only after 7 years thereafter that he has woken up as a Rip Van Winkle to raise the plea that the same had not been forwarded to the District Court. The very motives of the writ petitioner were severely assailed and put in a lurid light against the fact that in view of a very substantial enhancement of compensation by the District Judge it was only as an afterthought and perhaps some manipulation th
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
