Judgment:
P.B. Majumdar, J.
1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 7th June 2002 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] in LAQ Case No. 1 of 1998 on the ground that though the petitioner was required to be paid adequate compensation treating the land in question as irrigated land, the land in question is treated as non-irrigated land and the award declared by the Land Acquisition Officer is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside and the State Government is required to be directed to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner under the Act at a particular rate treating the land in question as irrigated land instead of treating the same as non-irrigated land.
2. The State Government had acquired the land of the petitioner for a public purpose. Proceedings under the Act were initiated by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Ultimately, at the time of declaring the award, the petitioner was informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the Government was willing to offer the amount at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per vigha, by letter dated 15.2.2002. The petitioner, by the said communication, was called upon to inform the Department whether he was agreeable to accept compensation at the said rate. It is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid letter that in case the petitioner fails to accept the offer within the stipulated time, regular award would be declared under the Act. Subsequently, on 7.6.2002, the petitioner appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and executed an agreement under under Section 11(2) of the Act [a copy of which is at pages 70-74 of the compilation of this petition] whereby the petitioner had agreed to accept the rate as offered in the communication dated 15.2.2002. On the basis of the said agreement executed by the petitioner on 7.6.02, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11(2) of the Act. The said award is also declared on 7.6.2002. It is not in dispute that the amount offered by the Government on the basis of the said award declared on 7.6.2002 under Section 11(2) of the Act has also been accepted by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner without any objection on 27.2.2002.
2.1 After withdrawing the amount, the petitioner started making grievance about the quantum of the amount and he also gave notice through his advocate on 15.9.2003. In the said notice, the petitioner has raised a dispute about free consent given by the petitioner at the time of entering into agreement dated 7.6.02 under Section 11(2) of the Act. It is also averred in the said notice that though the land is irrigated land, the award is declared treating the same as non-irrigated land.
2.2 The petitioner was informed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the grievance of the petitioner was not correct, and even if in the past, i.e. at the time of handing over the possession, some amount was paid to the petitioner and an agreement was entered into at that time fixing a particular price, such agreement is not binding and the same will have no effect, and since the award is now declared under Section 11(2), the said award is having a binding character.
3. Mr. Sheth for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at an earlier point of time, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner, and Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, a copy of which is at pages 28-32 of the compilation of the petition. The said agreement is dated 15.6.2001 and by the said agreement, rate determined was Rs. 1875/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs. 2812/for irrigated land. He has submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was bound to declare the award as per the said agreement, which was entered into in the year 2001. He has further submitted that there is documentary evidence in the form of revenue records which justifies the say of the petitioner that the land in question is irrigated land, and, therefore, the award should have been declared accordingly.
4. In our view, the said argument of Mr. Sheth is absolutely without any substance. It is required to be noted that even if in the past, the acquiring body has shown willingness to pay certain amount by way of entering into an agreement, it is an admitted fact that the said agreement was not acted upon, and no award was declared based on that agreement. It is not in dispute that before declaring the award, the petitioner was informed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer whether he was willing to accept a particular rate and whether he was willing to give consent and a specific letter to that effect was written by Special Land Acquisition Officer, a copy of which is produced at page 68. At that time, it was open to the petitioner not to accept the said offer, and in that eventuality, the Special Land Acquisition Officer could have declared award under Section 11(1) of the Act, and the petitioner had an option thereafter to ask for a Reference under Section 18 of the Act for getting higher compensation. Instead, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 7.6.2002. He has signed the said agreement and on that basis, consent award is declared by the Collector on the aforesaid date under Section 11(2) of the Act. The petitioner thereafter has even accepted the amount under the said award and after considerable time, started making grievance about the quantum.
5. At this stage, reference is required to be made to Section 11(2) of the Act, which reads as under:
'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further inquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.'
5.1 Since the petitioner himself has shown willingness to enter into an agreement voluntarily and subsequently award is declared, it is now not open to the petitioner to back out from the said agreement and to say that the Collector should have declared the award as per the earlier agreement entered into in the year 2001 and not as per the agreement entered into in the year 2002. There is nothing even to suggest that the petitioner accepted the amount under protest.
6. The scheme under Section 11(2) of the Act is also explained by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. DAYA SHAMJIBHAI reported in (1995) 5 SCC 746. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the agreement is an award with consent and the award is conclusive and binds the parties. Reiterating the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court, in the case of I.P. SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 1996 SC 1616 held that once the parties have agreed under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has power under Section 11(2) to pass the award in terms thereof.
7. Mr. Sheth, however, argued that the agreement was signed by the petitioner under compulsion and by way of misrepresentation as the petitioner was told that he has to only sign the new agreement which was as per the earlier agreement and since the earlier agreement was misplaced, the petitioner was required to enter into fresh agreement. It is not possible to accept this bald statement coming from the learned advocate for the petitioner, more particularly in view of the denial of such a situation by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. H.D. Dave during the course of argument. As pointed out by us earlier, after declaring consent award under Section 11(2) and after acceptance of the amount awarded as per the said agreement, the petitioner started making representations, and hence there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. Even otherwise, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot examine whether the petitioner had genuinely executed the agreement or the agreement was executed under duress or misrepresentation. Even otherwise, the award in question was declared as back as June 2002, and the petitioner immediately withdrew the awarded amount without any protest and has filed this petition in May 2004. Even the notice issued by the Advocate of the petitioner was almost after a period of one year. It is also required to be noted that while declaring the award, a particular amount is given to the petitioner by consent and after declaration of the award under Section 11(2) of the Act, the question whether the award should be declared treating the land as irrigated land or non-irrigated land cannot be examined by this Court in this petition.
8. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the petition is thoroughly misconceived and the petitioner, after taking the money as per the award, is trying to get some more amount under the pretext that the agreement was not genuine or that there was some misrepresentation on the part of the respondent due to which he executed the said agreement. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition, and the petition is rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.