IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.7246 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.5.2009 Executive Engineer -----Petitioner Vs. Land Acquisition Officer. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.: 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 12.4.2008, Annexure P-3 and a direction to the Collector to stop payment of interest on solatium. 2. The State of Punjab acquired land for public purpose. Award dated 12.4.2008 was made, determining compensation and the amount was also duly paid. The rate was duly approved by the State Government. The audit agency raised objection about calculation, on which the State asked the Collector to correct the award. The Collector expressed his inability to do so on the ground that the award was a quasi judicial order. CWP No.7246 of 2009 3. We have heard learned counsel for the State- petitioner. 4. We have asked learned counsel for the State as to how this petition will be maintainable. Award of the Collector is binding on the State Government as the Collector acts as agent of the State. Moreover, the award has to be issued with the approval of the Government and once such approval is granted, the State cannot be held to be aggrieved by the award made with its own approval. In Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation AIR 1986 SC 1164, it was observed:- “4. In our view there cannot be any possible doubt that the scheme of the Act is that, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector under S. 11 of the Act may not be questioned in any proceeding either by the Government or by the Company or Local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made. Section 50(2) and S. 25 lead to that inevitable conclusion. Surely what may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226. Art. 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the provisions of the statute. When S. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made from demanding a reference under S. 18 of the Act, notwithstanding that such company or local authority may be 2 CWP No.7246 of 2009 allowed to adduce evidence before the Collector, and when S. 25 expressly prohibits the court from reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the reference under S. 18, it is, clearly not permissible for the company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 to challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced. 5. Long ago, it was held in Ezra v. Secretary of State for India, (1905) 32 Ind App 93: ILR 32 Cal 605 and it has never been doubted since, 'that the 'Award' in which the enquiry by the Collector results is merely a decision (binding only on the Collector) as to what sum shall be tendered to the owners of the lands' and that, 'if a judicial ascertainment of value is desired by the owner, he can obtain it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to the Court.' As pointed out by this court in Harish Chandra v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 SCR 676 : (AIR 1961 SC 1500) the observations of the Privy Council in Ezra's case indicate that the Collector, in making an award, acts as an agent of the Government, and that the legal character of the award made by the Collector is that of a tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government (See also Mohammad Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCR 265 at p. 274 : (AIR) 1979 SC 404 at p. 409). If the Collector making an award was in law making an offer on behalf of the Government, it is difficult to appreciate how the Government or anyone who could but claim through the Government would be entitled to question the award, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion.” 3 CWP No.7246 of 2009 5. In view of above, we are of the view that this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed, as such. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 14, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ashwani JUDGE 4