BABUARAM v. STATE OF U.P.

p. 186 Copy page pinpoint

A Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the view that the respondents are right in their contention. Award under dl is only an offer made by the Collector on behalf of the State and the State is bound by the offer. If the offer is accepted without protest and the claimant receives the compensation under s.31, the proceedings get concluded and no further steps need be taken under the Act. The B claimant, if receives the compensation under protest and makes an applica- tion under s.18 in the prescribed manner within the limitation, the Collec- tor is enjoined to refer the objection under s.18 to the court and the controversy would be at large, subject to determination by the Court. The decision of the court is an award and decree under s.26 and is conclusive C between the parties subject to appeal under s.54 etc. Thereby the deter- mination of the compensation under s.26 even without acceptance binds the parties. The offer of the Collector being on behalf of the State and the beneficiary, the State does not get the right to seek a reference under s.18 against the award of the Collector. The beneficiary is only an interested person to adduce evidence in determining proper compensation. However, D the Collector/L.A.O. is its/his agent and the acts of the agent binds the principal-beneficiary. The beneficiary does not stand on a higher footing than the State. This should not be understood to mean that the beneficiary has no right to appeal under s.54 against the award made under s.26 or further right to question the decree made in appeal before this court.

E No doubt s.28-A(2) speaks of interested persons and s.28-A{l) of person aggrieved. As interpreted by this court of the said expressions, the beneficiary is also an interested person to see that proper compensation is determined by the court, gets right to hearing before award is made and to carry in appeal under s.54 and has a right to appear before the Collector F during award inquiry which right is only limited to participation in the inquiry and to adduce evidence or to file an appeal to determine just and proper compensation for the lands under acquisition. Sub-section (2) of s.28-A equally gives right of an opportunity of hearing to an interested person in the inquiry under s.28- A{l). The State and the beneficiary are persons interested in determination of just and proper compensation. G However, acceptance of the award under sub-s.(3) appears to us to be, an acceptance by the claimant and not by the beneficiary or the State, as the Collector acts on their behalf as an agent. It is true that the award under s.11 was made with prior approval of the State Government or its auihorised officer and that limitation expressly was not laid in s.28-A(2) H but the legal effect does not get altered by virtue of the above distinction

BABUARAMv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.] 187

or omission in s.29-A(2). The participation in the proceedings and right to an opportunity of hearing including the right to adduce evidence by the beneficiary though the normal parlance carries with it the right to an appeal, in view of the scheme and the language of s.11 under s.28-A(2) does not clothe the beneficiary with a right to seek reference when he does not have such a right under s.18. The award of the Collector under sub-s.(2) of s.28-A though as a post s.11 stage, nonetheless, the award under s.28- A(2) is award and partakes the same character as an offer and not a decision. Therefore, if the applicant accepts the award, the award becomes complete and acceptance brings the proceedings under s.28-A(l) to a terminus and the award binds the claimant and the Collector. On non acceptance and seeking a reference under s.28-A(3), the award made under s.28-A(2) is at large subject to the decision by the court by applica- tion of ss.18 to 26 as is envisaged in s.28-A(3) itself. Section 2A of the local amendment made by the Haryana State Legislature adopting the Amend- ment made by the legislature of the Himachal Pradesh, manifests that despite the offer made by the Collector under s.11, the State is entitled to D ·seek reference under s.18 but the sub-s.(2) expressly excludes the right of reference under s.18 to the Union when the land was acqnired on behalf of the Union of India. Thereby it is clear that the right to such reference under s.28-A(3) by the beneficiary does not arise and stands excluded. Though not apposite, but we can have a clue from s.50 of the Act which prohibits reference at the behest of the beneficiary when the acquisition E was made on behalf of a local authority or a company. It is true that there arises an anomalous situation when an award is made under s.28-A(2) the Collector may award compensation in excess of the amount given under s.26, while the claimant was provided with remedy under s.23(3), ·the beneficiary or the State are left with no remedy under the Act However, F the Collector being an authority under the Act, the award of the Collector made under s.28A is not totally immune from jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, if required to be challenged by the State or the beneficiary, who have no other legal remedy in the matter. G • Thus considered, we are of the view that the beneficiary is not an aggrieved person and the Collector/L.A.0. has no power to make, at the instance of the beneficiary or the State to make a reference under sub-s.(3) of s.28-A read with s.18 subject to local amendments as was done by Haryana and the Himachal Pradesh Legislatures. This factor may be an H

p. 188 Copy page pinpoint

A additional reason for the Collector to await the decision of the High Court or of this Court, when the award of the Court under s.26 was carried in appeal under s.54 or the latter under Article 136. Pending decision, he should stay his hands and take up the matter only after the decision is rendered by the High Court or by this Court. Yet, in view of the local amendments to the Act like that made by Haryana Legislature, the State B may seek reference under s.28-A(3), since s.18 gets attracted by operation of sub-s(2)-A of s.18 of Haryana local amendment. When the land was acquired for and on behalf of the State, it becomes also entitled to a reference under s.28-A(3) and all the provisions of ss.18 to 28 shall apply to such a reference. c After becoming aware of the introduction of s.28-A, it would appear that several antedated applications under s.28-A or s.18 were made to use the award made under s.26 to get the benefit of s.28-A. Therefore, applica- tions made under s.28-A create a doubt whether the award made nnder s.26 which forms the basis for snch application had been secured on an antedated or frandulent application purported to have been made under s.18, it shall be open to the State to have the matter thoroughly examined by an officer of the status of the District Collector/Commissioner Jo find the truth and such officer if one enquiry made with reference to the relevant records, finds that the applications under s.28A(l) are genuine and was/were made within limitation or the award under s.26 is founded on genuine application made on reference under s.18 within limitation. He would cause proper enquiry made so that the benefit of the award under s.26 may become unavailable for such spurious applicants who fraudulently or collusively made application under s.28-A. However, it has to be remem- bered by the Collector/L.A.O. deciding s.28A application that the compen- F sation for land given in the award under s.26 or judgment in appeal should form the basis of redetermination of compensation for the applicants' land; the same amount of compensation need not be given where there are differences in nature and quality and situation of the comparable land.

In the light of the above findings, our conclusion in each appeal/ap- G peal on their facts, would be as under :

In Babua Ram's case, though we hold that the appellants are persons · aggrieved within the meaning of sub-s.(1) of s.28-A to avail the right under s.28-A(l) yet the High Court is right in directing that the Collector/L.A.O. H ought to have awaited the decision of the High Court. After the receipt of

p. 189 Copy page pinpoint

the decision of the High Court, the Collector/L.A.O., after issuing notice to the respondents and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing should enquire into (i) whether the application/applications was/were filed as written application/applications satisfying the requisites of s.28A and within limitation, and (ii) in case those findings recorded are in favour of the applicants, still the Collector should decide .whether the applicants are persons interested in other lands covered by the same notification and the award made by the Collector under s.11. He should, therefore, enquire into the record findings in this behalf. In case, the Collector/L.A.O. records findings in favour of the claimants then he should consider whether enhan- cement of compensation can be made on the basis of the award under s.26 by the civil court or High Court and redetermine the same in accordance with law. If he records findings in favour of the claimant/claimants, he shall make the award under sub-s.(2) of s.28-A and follow the procedure under· s.28-A and the reievant provisions in Part III in that behalf. The order of the High Court is set aside and writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The appeals, therefore, are allowed subject to the above directions. D·

In Goa, Daman & Diu Industrial Devi. Corporation and State ap- peals, though we uphold the order of the High Court in its findings that the respondents are persons aggrieved, it is not the end of the journey. The direction issued in the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector/L.A.O. He should issue notice to the applicant E in each petition and give reasonable opportunity of being heard in per- son/counsel. He should consider whether the written applications satisfy the requirements of s.28A(1) and were, in fact, filed within the limitation. Before proceeding as above, he should satisfy himself whether the award under s.26 relied upon in support of th~ application made under s.28A, F was not made on the basis of antedated or fraudulent application under s.18 or the applications made under s.28A(l) are antedated or fraudulently brought on record to claim the benefit under s.28(1). In case the findings are in favour of the claimant/claimants, then it is not necessary that there should be a second application, since the application already filed for G redetermination of the compensation after the earlier award and decree of the civil court under s.26 is sufficient compliance with the requirement of s.28-A(l). On the basis of the judgment and decree of the High Court which has become final i.e. later one, the Collector/L.A.0. should redeter- mine the compensation taking into account .all the relevant facts and circumstances enumerated in s.23 and s.28-A(l) and other related H

p. 190 Copy page pinpoint

A provisions applicable to the facts.

In Union of India and connected appeals, though the appellants are the person interested under sub-s.(2) of s.28-A for the purpose of enabling them to adduce evidence in redetermination of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer acted as an agent on behalf of the State as well as the B beneficiary-Union of India. The appellant is bound by the offer made by the Collector/L.A.O. Therefore, the question of their accepting the award made under s.28-A(2) does not arise. It cannot seek reference under s.28-A(3) or under s.18 of the Act. However, it would he open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the award made under s.28-A(2) C in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. However, in view of our finding that the Collector should await the final decision of the High Court or of this court, the Collector/L.A.O. committed grievous error of law in proceeding to make an award under s.28-A(Z). He should have awaited the decision of the High Court in that pending appeal. The order of the High D Court and that of the Collector are set aside. The cases are remitted to the Collector to keep them back pending disposal of appeal by the High Court. In case the decree of the High Court granting compen5ation is in excess of the award of the Collector/L.A.O. under s.11, then the Collector should enquire whether the application satisfy the requirements of s.28A and whether the application had been properly made and within limitation. In E case the finding/findings is/are in favour of the applicants, then he should redetermine the compensation on the basis of the award under s.26, and make the award under. s.28-A(2) and should follow the procedure prescribed in Part III. Therefore, the orders of the Collector and that of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in revisions are set aside and the Collector shall follow the procedure indicated hereinbefore and decree as per the law and the judgment. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

All appeals in this judgment are disposed of accordingly and the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The SLP Nos. 17268/93, 21652/93, 17164/93 and 1670/94 have been delinked and the Registry is directed to list these matters, separately, but immediately. •

U.R. Appeals disposed of.