£•• ^•"r IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SIngte Bsnti Civil Revision No. 1 ^/ /20ii ..^ APPLICANTS ^ Sukal, D/o. Late Guru Bhatra, aged about 35 years, ^e] Padmani, D/o. Late Guru Bhatra, aged about 28 years, ^•^iSv}€3^3alSs^Baa^ Tahsil {y.^'^- '--'y "y'"" .........^^ -0—i- — ? PF; D-^2'1- .Tl .ft<ttA»»A«.»< 6- VERSUS oV-l^ RESPONDENTS i] Secretary Revenue Department,D.KS. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2], Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) General Manager, NMDC Steel Plant, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) y Land Acquisition Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) CTVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION II.^ OF CTVIL PROCEDURE CODE WITH SECTION^lSf.^) OF THE LAND ACOUISITIONACT. 1804 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR aVIL REVISJON No. 139 OF 2011 APPUCANTS RESPONDENTS Sukal & another VERSUS : Secretary, Revenue Department & others CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTtON 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicants. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 15/12/2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the Collector and District Magjstrate, Bastar, in Revenue Case No. 2/B-121/11-12, whereby and whereunder the appilcant's application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed, is under assai! in the instant revision. 2. Brief facts of the case are: land bearing Khasra No. 1633, Area 2.02 Hect. situated in Viliage Upanpal, Teh. Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar, was acquired by the respondents/State under the provjsions of the Act. After issuing notice under Section 9 of the Act and after hearlng the objections raised by the interested persons upon the said acquisition, the award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act fixing the amount of compensation for the aforesaid land as Rs. 2,56,880/-. fiT\ \ i^sm^ J.i ^^•s:^-" .{/ ^^•^ '^..^'^' As per appiicants, their father Guru Bhatra S/o Sadan Bhatra was the real owner of the land in question. By typographical error name of their father has been wrongly written as Guru Bhatra S/o Madan Bhatra and by taking benefrt of above mistake lega! representatives of Madan Bhatra are ciaiming the above amount of compensation. The petitloner's father objected the same during his lifetime and an enquiry was also conducted by the Collector, Bastar, in which it is found that rea! owner of the land was applicant's father. Therefore, for the purpose of obtaining the amount of compensation fixed under Section 11 of the Act the applicants preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act for refemng the matter to District Judge concerned for resolving the disputes between the applicants as well as legal representatives of Madan Bhatra, but the same has been dismissed by the Collector, Bastar, hoiding disputs pertains to apportionment of compensation and for that Sectlon 18 of the Act has no appiication. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, by refereeing Section 18 & 30 of the Act submits that dispute is with regard to entitlement of compensation, and even if application is filed under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, the matter has to be referred to the District Judge for its adjudication, and therefore, the Collector has committed manifest error while rejecting the applicant's application on the above ground. '^^'J''^:s^^. ^.:^~\"''"^" ^. ^ v^l:"'^<€:Ss } "^^ '-^^" ,^/ '^ 5. Shri GD Waswani, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State did not dispute the above legal proposition of law. 6. i have heard the counsei appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, reads as under: "18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, v/hether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Coliector under section 12, sub-section. (c) ..............." 8. "30. Dispute as to apportionment. - When the amount of compensation has been settied 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 ofthe Court." From a bare perusa! of the order impugned it appears that the dispute is with regard to entitlement of compensation. Further, whether the matter is covered under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, in both the cases, the matter has to be referred to the District Judge for its adjudication. Therefore, in my opinion, the --<, v-< / Collector, Bastar, has acted without jurisdiction while rejecting the applicant's application on the above ground. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, ground for interference in the order impugned is made out. Revision is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bastar, for deciding the applicant's application afresh in accordance with law in the light of observations made hereinabove. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu