Full Judgment
1 W.P. No. 4189 Of 2013 20.3.2013 Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent State, on advance notice.
Heard.
Order dated 15.12.2012 passed by Collector, Singrauli, district Singrauli is being assailed vide this petition.
By impugned order respondent No. 2 Collector has rejected the application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and declined to refer the matter for determination of the compensation by the Court.
It is not in dispute that land in question of the petitioner was acquired for Mahan Aluminum Smelter & Captive Power Project. An award was passed on 20.4.2011 and a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued on 20.4.2011.
It is the stand of the petitioner that while declining to accept the compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer, an application was filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before Collector on 18.5.2011 for referring the matter for determination of compensation by the Court. Collector, however, by impugned order rejected the application stating therein that the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner is just and proper.
The order has been assailed on the anvil of law laid down in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through LRs. And others v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 9 SCC 325]., wherein it is held “21. Section 18 does not require a land owner objecting to the amount of compensation, to make a claim for any specific amount as compensation, No. does it require him to state whether the increase in compensation is sought only in regard to the land, or land and building, or land, building and trees. A 2 land owner can seek reference to civil court, with reference to any one or more of the four types of objections permissible under section 18 of the Act, with reference to the award. His objection can either be in regard to the measurement of the acquired land or in regard to the compensation offered by the Collector or in regard to persons to whom it is shown as payable or the apportionment of compensation among several claimants.
Once the land owner states that he has objection to the amount of compensation, and seeks reference to the civil court, the entire issue of compensation is open before the Reference Court.
Once the claimant satisfies the Reference Court that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, the Reference Court proceeds to determine the compensation, with reference to the principles in section 23 of the Act.”
In view of the above proponement the order passed by Collector declining to refer the matter for adjudication does not withstand scrutiny and is accordingly quashed.
The Collector is directed to dwell upon the application and in case petitioner has not accepted the compensation to refer the same for determination to the Court. Let the decision be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
Petition is allowed to the extent above. There shall be no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi