IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2385 of 2010 Date of decision: April 26, 2011 Netar Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankuish Sood, Addl. Advocate General and J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Ramesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 4. ______________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(a) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to produce the record of the case and further quashing the entire proceedings conducted by respondent No. 3 as well as the award No. 10 passed by him on 14.5.2010 (Annexure P-10), as being without jurisdiction. (b) That a writ of Quo-warranto may be issued declaring notifications and appointment of respondent No. 3, as Assistant Collector as well as Land Acquisition Officer, as violative of the statutory provisions and without due authority of law thereby 2 quashing his appointment and notifications dated 23.8.2008 and 13.3.2009 (Annexures P-4 & P-5). (c) That the entire proceedings conducted by respondent No. 3 as well as the Award No. 10 of 2010, passed by him may be quashed on the ground of being violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. (d) That the declaration (Annexure P-3) as well as notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P-2) may kindly be quashed on the ground of being violative of the mdandate of Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 17 of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice.” 2. On 26th February, 2011, this court passed the following order:- “CMP No.1056 of 2011. Impleadment allowed and application stands disposed. CWP No.2385 of 2010. The issue raised in this petition only pertains to Awards passed by an Officer, who is not authorized to pass the Awards under the Land Acquisition Act. On 23.12.2010, this Court passed the following order:- “There will be a direction to the first respondent to state in the affidavit to be filed within six weeks from today as to the number of Awards passed by the 3rd respondent in his capacity as Assistant Collector, despite being not otherwise authorised to do so under law and in how many cases, the amounts have been disbursed and whether the State has filed any appeal in such cases.” 3 The Special Secretary (PWD), Government of Himachal Pradesh, has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that 27 Awards have been announced by the 3rd respondent and that the Awards suffer from legal infirmity. It is also stated that of 27 Awards announced by the incompetent Officer, amounts have been disbursed in 17 cases to the tune of Rs.2,43,78,631/-. We are informed by the petitioner that these 17 are negotiated Awards. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Government has directed the District Collector to ratify all Awards passed by the 3rd respondent. We fail to understand as to how the Government can issue such a direction to ratify the action of a person, who is not authorized under law and who does not have the powers to pass the Awards. In other words, the Awards passed by the Officer, without any power to do so, are null and void. If that be so, there is no question of any ratification. It is a situation, where the competent Officer is bound under law to exercise his due powers and pass Awards in accordance with law. There will be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer, who is the District Collector, Shimla, in the above circumstances, to pass proper Awards in all 27 cases, wherein Awards have been passed by the 3rd respondent without jurisdiction. We make it clear that this exercise shall be undertaken by the District Collector, Shimla, after issuing notices to all the claimants in 27 Awards announced without authority by the Assistant Collector. A report on the action, thus, taken by the District Collector, Shimla, shall be filed before this Court within two months. In order to enable the District Collector, Shimla, to do the needful, as above, he shall ignore the direction issued by the Government to ratify the action taken by the 3rd respondent. However, we further make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of Government, if it is otherwise permissible as per the norms followed by the Government at the relevant time, to appoint the 3rd respondent as Assistant Collector to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 3 ( c ) of the 4 Act. We further make it clear that if such exercise is undertaken by the Government, reference shall be made to PR-1 and PR-2, filed along with the rejoinder. Post on 6th April, 2011. Copy Dasti.” 3. The Principal Secretary (PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed an affidavit, dated 5th April, 2011 wherein it is stated as follows:- “That in compliance to these orders of Hon’ble High Court the respondent department has supplied the list of 27 Awards prepared by office of the Land Acquisition Officer, HP PWD, Shimla which Awards had been passed by the 3rd respondent without jurisdiction, to the District Collector, Shimla enabling him to pass proper Awards in accordance to the aforesaid direction of this Hon’ble Court. The Office of Land Acquisition Officer, HP PWD, Shimla being custodian of the records has also been directed to make available all the records pertaining to these Awards to the District Collector, Shimla.” 4. Thus, the authorized Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, in terms of the procedure, as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, will necessarly have to pass proper awards. We direct the Collector, authorized in this behalf, to pass proper awards, as indicated above, within a period of one month from the production of the copy of this order by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. Needless to say that in the process if any rectification is to be made that exercise shall also be undertaken. 5. In case de novo proceedings are to be initiated, we make it clear that in the process, needful shall be done and the entire proceedings, in any case, shall be completed within 5 a period of six months. Needless to say, the cases where the proceedings have not been elapsed, fresh awards, as above, shall be passed within a period of one month, as directed above. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice April 26, 2011 (K) ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge