CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2011 Gulzar Singh son of Mansa Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. G.S.Grewal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. H.S.Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G. Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition Department Urban Development, S.A.S. Nagar. The grounds for challenge in this writ petition are that: (i) prior approval of the appropriate Government has not been obtained by the Collector before passing of the Award; CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 2 (ii) no apportionment of the shares to the individuals has been done in the Award; (iii) the value of the land has not been assessed by the Collector independently but has relied upon the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and; (iv) that no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was served on the petitioner, which is mandatory vitiating the Award. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the approval of the Award should have been obtained from the Governor, State of Punjab, which has not been obtained and, therefore, the Award cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Bhalla vs. State of M.P. and others, JT 2006 (1) SC 300. He contends that Section 11 (1) (iii) of the Act mandates apportionment of the compensation among all the persons who are the claimants, which has not been done in the Award and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sharan Pal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 1991 PLJ 28. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of the impugned Award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1). Relying on the provisions of the Act, he contends that the Collector is required to assess the market value of the land and is required to hold an independent enquiry for such assessment, instead he has proceeded to accept the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee which would render the Award invalid. Referring to CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Section 9 of the Act, the counsel has contended that the petitioner was not served with the notice before passing of the Award, which has taken away the available right conferred on him under the Statute to object to the compensation amount he would be entitled to. The petitioner has not been associated with the determination of the rate of the land under acquisition and thus, the Award cannot be sustained. When the case came up for hearing on 11.07.2011, counsel for the State was directed to produce the records of the Land Acquisition Collector and other relevant records. Accordingly, at the time of hearing, the original records have been produced by him. Counsel for the State has also produced the Standing Order issued in pursuance to the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Punjab, 1992 issued by the Governor of Punjab vide order dated 25.02.1992, according to which, the authority competent to pass final orders in cases/enactment for acquisition of land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be the Minister In- charge. In this case, the Minister In-charge is the Chief Minister. The original file, which has been produced in Court, depicts that the Draft Award prepared by the Land Acquisition collector was approved by the Chief Minister (who is the Minister In-charge of the department) on 18.03.2010 well before the passing of the Award dated 31.03.2010. The contention, thus, of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the non- approval of the Award by the competent authority before passing of the same stands rejected. Even in para 53 of the judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. K.K.Bhalla's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the approval should have come by the cabinet or the concerned Minister or by an authority, who is CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 4 empowered in that behalf in terms of the Rules of the Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The judgment, thus, is of no help to the petitioner. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no apportionment of the shares to the individuals has been done in the Award and, therefore, the Award is not in accordance with law, also cannot be accepted. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 7439 of 2010 challenging notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, in which stay of dispossession of the petitioner was granted. The writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2011. On the date of the passing of the Award i.e. 31.03.2011, the interim order staying dispossession of the petitioner was in operation. The Collector in the Award, while dealing with the method of disbursement of compensation, states that the compensation shall be granted to the land owners according to their shares as entered in the Jamabandi. The rate of the land of each village has been separately assessed per acre and the total compensation also has been accordingly, assessed. The compensation amount has also been offered to the land owners, which finds mention in the Award itself. The non-determination of the individual compensation of the land owners by the Award would, at the most, be an irregularity, which would not vitiate the Award as the Collector, in the Award, has clearly stated that the compensation will be disbursed to the land owners as per their shares in the revenue records. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Sharan Pal Singh and others's case (supra) does not lay down a proposition that the Award would be invalid if the amount of compensation of each person is not assessed by the Collector. The case in fact was one where the contention of the petitioner was that there has to CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 5 be one consolidated Award as land includes buildings, trees and other things attached to the earth or permanently fasten to anything attached to the earth and includes benefits arising out of the land. The Award only pertained to the land and no Award was passed with regard to the superstructure and trees, which was held by the Court to be an invalid Award, which is no more a valid law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohanji vs. State of Utter Pradesh, JT 1995 (8) SC 599. As regards the non-receipt of notice under Section 9 of the Act, suffice it to say that in the Award, it is clearly mentioned that notices were issued to the land owners on 24.02.2010 and they were duly served on the land owners and the land owners, who came present in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector on 12.03.2010, were heard. Further, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he came to know on 01.04.2010 that certain people in the village were served with notice under Section 9 of the Act, which shows that notices under Section 9 of the Act were duly sent by the Collector. It may be that the petitioner did not receive the same but that would not render the Award invalid in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. and another vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 269 and Nasik Municipal Corporation vs. Harbans Lal Laikwant Rajpal and others, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 199, wherein it has been held that in the absence of notice or failure to serve notice, it would be an irregularity. If there is irregularity in the service of notice under Section 9 of the Act, it would be curable irregularity and on account thereof, Award made under Section 11 of the Act does not become invalid. CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 6 The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been associated with the determination of the amount of compensation, would not carry weight in the light of the position, as stated above. The amount of compensation is to be determined by the Collector and for that, he is required to assess the value of the land. There are various ways of reaching that conclusion and it is for the Collector to proceed to assess the same. The mode and method adopted by the Collector would not render the Award invalid. His decision to accept the rate assessed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 01.02.2010 along with other benefits, would not render the Award illegal and in any case, an Award of the Collector made under Section 11 of the Act is nothing more than an offer of compensation made by the Government to the claimants, whose property is acquired. Section 18 of the Act confers right upon a person interested, who has not accepted the Award, to move an application to the Collector for making a reference to the Court, if he feels aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to him. Since a remedy is available under the Act itself, the Award of the Collector cannot be quashed on this ground. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act would show that a person, who is an interested person and has not accepted the Award, may prefer a reference for determination to the Court on the point of his objection to the measurement of the land or the amount of compensation or the persons, to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. In view of this, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the assessment of the amount of compensation of the land by the Land Acquisition Collector. CWP No. 10227 of 2010 (O&M) 7 All grounds, as raised by the petitioner, challenging the Award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) being without merit, are rejected. Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE JUDGE July 21 , 2011 pj