IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 13482 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 30, 2010 M/s J.B. Gram Udyog Samiti …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 7.8.2009 (P-10), passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Samrala-respondent No. 2. A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No. 2 to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner for the property constructed and owned by it over the land in question after taking the CWP No. 13482 of 2009 same on lease from respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. It is claimed that the petitioner had taken 2B-11B-11B of land on lease for a period of 20 years from respondent No. 3 and 4 for setting up of a brick kiln. For the aforesaid purpose a lease deed was executed between the petitioner or its predecessor-in-interest and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is asserted that in pursuance of the terms of lease deed the petitioner invested a huge amount for construction of brick kiln, vessel, office and servant quarters etc. A part of the lease money was also paid. However, the land in question with the construction was acquired by the State of Punjab for a public purpose, namely, for construction of New B.G. Railway Line from Chandigarh to Ludhiana, vide notifications dated 26.9.2007 and 13.12.2007, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The award was announced on 20.3.2009. It has been submitted that the land owners i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have already received the compensation of the land to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that when it has filed an application before respondent No. 2 claiming compensation of the constructed kiln vessel, bricked chimney, servant quarters and office etc., which were constructed by it over the land in dispute, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also filed objections to the said application and contested the claim of the petitioner. 3. The Collector-respondent No. 2, vide the impugned order dated 7.8.2009, has opined that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 regarding their entitlement of compensation/award money. Accordingly, he has adjourned the 2 CWP No. 13482 of 2009 matter sine die directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for determination of their title/claim regarding compensation of construction of brick kiln, vessels, bricked chimney, servant quarters and office etc. and that the amount of compensation/award money would be disbursed after the decision of the civil court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. It would be appropriate to first notice Section 30 of the Act, which reads thus: “30. Dispute as to apportionment. – When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” 5. From a bare perusal of Section 30 of the Act it becomes clear that the Collector is obliged to refer such like disputes to the Court. It is also apposite to notice Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines the expression ‘Court’ to mean ‘a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless, the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under this Act’. The Collector cannot assume jurisdiction himself. He cannot also issue direction to any other court to determine the dispute between various claimants. He should refer such a dispute only to a District Judge. 6. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the 3 CWP No. 13482 of 2009 view that the order dated 7.8.2009 (P-10) deserves to be set aside and a direction is liable to be issued to the Principal Civil Court i.e. Court of learned District Judge of the concerned district to determine the rights of the parties. Accordingly, we direct the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, to determine the rights of the parties. 7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Samrala-respondent No. 2 is directed to forward the application of the petitioner to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, for deciding the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis the claim of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The needful be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The learned District Judge, Ludhiana, shall dispose of the claim of the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Samrala-respondent No. 2. 9. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 30, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4