Raghu Sao and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - 5. section 28a of the act has been inserted in the act with sole object to give same benefits to the poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act.orderm.y. eqbal, j. 1. in the writ application the petitioners seek issuance of writ directing the district land acquisition officer, hazaribagh to consider the application to the petitioners under section 28a of the land acquisition act and to re-determine compensation on the basis of award given by the land acquisition judge in l.r. case no. 55/03 and analogous cases. further prayer has been made for quashing the order-dated 20-6-2005 passed by the special judge-cum-land acquisition judge, hazaribagh, whereby prayer of the petitioner has been rejected.2. the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:by virtue of two notifications, large chunk of land of village kud, p.s. katakmasandi, district hazaribagh was acquired for construction of railway line. the collector passed different award in favour of different persons in land acquisition case no. 26/2001-02 and 27/2001-02. petitioners received the amount of compensation and alleged to have jointly filed application under section 18 of the land acquisition act for reference to the land acquisition judge for enhancement of compensation. the land acquisition judge registered those applications as l.r. case no. 55/03. petitioners' case is that although, their names were shown as interested persons in col. 4 of form-18 for reference to court under section 18 of the land acquisition act. but the land acquisition judge, while enhancing compensation, has not given award in favour of the petitioners. petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under section 151, c.p.c. praying therein to pass an award in their names also. the land acquisition judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners by order-dated 20-6-2005 holding that the application of the petitioners for reference was not filed in a proper form and, therefore, it was not a valid reference and rejected the same as not maintainable.3. in the light of the aforesaid facts, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioners are entitled to the benefits as contemplated under section 28a of the land acquisition act. section 28-a of the land acquisition act reads as under:re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court- (1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons, interested in all other land, covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the collector under section 18, by written application to the collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.(2) the collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.(3) any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the collector, require that the matter be referred by the collector for the determination of the court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.4. from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that the persons whose lands have been acquired by the same notification under section 4 of the act and who are aggrieved by the award of the collector may approach the court for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed by land acquisition judge in favour of other persons whose lands have been acquired by the same notification. the only condition put in the said section is that persons who seek benefits of section 28a of the act must not have made an application to the collector under section 18 of the act.5. section 28a of the act has been inserted in the act with sole object to give same benefits to the poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act.6. in the instant case, as noticed above, the land acquisition judge in his order dated 20-6-2005 has held that no valid reference under section 18 of the act was made on behalf of these petitioners and, therefore, their petitions were rejected as not maintainable. in my opinion, therefore, benefit of section 28a is also available to those persons whose petition under section 18 has not been considered by the land acquisition judge on the ground inter alia that no valid reference was made by the collector. admittedly, by the same notification chunk of lands belonging to different persons including petitioners have been acquired. the compensation amount determined by the collector has been enhanced by the land acquisition judge in favour of those persons on whose behalf valid references were made. petitioners have been deprived of the same compensation because of the fact that the application of these petitioners were not validly referred by the collector. in such situation, in my considered opinion, the collector is bound to consider the case of the petitioners under section 28a of the act and re-determine the compensation in the light of the award passed by the land acquisition judge.7. for the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and respondent nos. 4 to 6, namely, deputy commissioner, additional collector and district land acquisition officer, hazaribagh are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under section 28a of the act and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In the writ application the petitioners seek issuance of writ directing the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh to consider the application to the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and to re-determine compensation on the basis of award given by the Land Acquisition Judge in L.R. Case No. 55/03 and analogous cases. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order-dated 20-6-2005 passed by the Special Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh, whereby prayer of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

By virtue of two notifications, large chunk of land of village Kud, P.S. Katakmasandi, district Hazaribagh was acquired for construction of railway line. The Collector passed different award in favour of different persons in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2001-02 and 27/2001-02. Petitioners received the amount of compensation and alleged to have jointly filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Land Acquisition Judge for enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Judge registered those applications as L.R. case No. 55/03. Petitioners' case is that although, their names were shown as interested persons in Col. 4 of Form-18 for reference to Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. But the Land Acquisition Judge, while enhancing compensation, has not given award in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. praying therein to pass an award in their names also. The Land Acquisition Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners by order-dated 20-6-2005 holding that the application of the petitioners for reference was not filed in a proper form and, therefore, it was not a valid reference and rejected the same as not maintainable.

3. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioners are entitled to the benefits as contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:

Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons, interested in all other land, covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under Sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.

4. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that the persons whose lands have been acquired by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act and who are aggrieved by the Award of the Collector may approach the court for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed by Land Acquisition Judge in favour of other persons whose lands have been acquired by the same notification. The only condition put in the said section is that persons who seek benefits of Section 28A of the Act must not have made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act.

5. Section 28A of the Act has been inserted in the Act with sole object to give same benefits to the poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

6. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Land Acquisition Judge in his order dated 20-6-2005 has held that no valid reference under Section 18 of the Act was made on behalf of these petitioners and, therefore, their petitions were rejected as not maintainable. In my opinion, therefore, benefit of Section 28A is also available to those persons whose petition under Section 18 has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Judge on the ground inter alia that no valid reference was made by the Collector. Admittedly, by the same notification chunk of lands belonging to different persons including petitioners have been acquired. The compensation amount determined by the Collector has been enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge in favour of those persons on whose behalf valid references were made. Petitioners have been deprived of the same compensation because of the fact that the application of these petitioners were not validly referred by the Collector. In such situation, in my considered opinion, the Collector is bound to consider the case of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act and re-determine the compensation in the light of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and respondent Nos. 4 to 6, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Additional Collector and District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.