9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paying compensation as per the said awards. Hence this petition, asking for a writ of mandamus requiring respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation , to pay to the petitioners the amounts of compensation as per the awards. Respondent No. 2 in this petition is the Competent Authority. 3. By issuing certain notifications as contemplated under the Act the Corporation acquired the right of user of the lands of the petitioners, leading the petitioners to file applications for compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The Competent Authority heard the applications of the petitioners and determined certain sums as compensation payable to the petitioners. The Corporation is, therefore, obliged to pay the compensation so fixed by the Competent Authority. 4. Writ Petition No. 834 of 1985 has been filed by the Corporation for setting aside the aforesaid awards on the ground that the awards were null and void as the same were given without giving an opportunity to the Corporation to lead evidence on its behalf or to lead evidence in rebuttal of the material which had been taken on record by the Competent Authority behind the back of the Corporation. 5. In o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pier of the land. Such owner or occupier is entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of notification of the intention to acquire the right of user under Section 3(1). However, he cannot construct, after the declaration made under Sub-section (1) of Section 6, any building or any other structure, nor can he do any excavation for the purpose of any tank, well, reservoir or dam. The owner is also precluded from planting any trees. The owner or the occupier is also enjoined not to do any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline. This is the sum and substance of the acquisition proceedings and the effect of the same on the rights of the owner or the occupier of the land. 7. Next comes the provision for compensation for the right so acquired. We have already seen that after the issue of the notification under Section 3, any person authorised is entitled to enter upon the land and make a survey of the same. This would naturally cause some damage to the land. We have also seen that after the issue of the declaration under Section 6, when the right f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f compensation payable under the Act. One party, obviously, is the party whose land is affected by the acquisition proceedings; the other party necessarily is the party who has to pay the compensation. Either of the parties can make an application to the District Judge complaining about the amount of compensation one way or the other. The decision of the District Judge on an application preferred by either of the parties is made final by Sub-section (6) of Section 10. Section 14 provides that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Competent Authority is empowered to determine and no injunction will be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. 9. We will now proceed to take notice of certain rules which have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 17. Rule 4 provides for the period of limitation for the application to be made by any person interested in any land for claiming compensation before the Competent Authority. Claim for compensation for damages sustained by a person by reason of the exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpensation. 12. The claimants in Writ Petition No. 269 of 1985 as well as in Writ Petition No. 270 of 1985 have contended that the Competent Authority was appointed for determining the amount of compensation payable to them and that authority made two awards in what have been numbered as Compensation Cases Nos. 22 of 1984 and 23 of 1984. The Competent Authority has fixed the amounts of compensation, which amounts are not being deposited by the Corporation, which in the instant case is the acquiring body, in the treasury, nor is it paying the same to the claimants, despite being called upon to do so by notice. The Corporation has resisted the claims made by the claimants in these two Writ Petitions by filing its own Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petitions Nos. 834 of 1985 and 835 of 1985, by contending that the awards made by the Competent Authority are a nullity in law, because the said Authority did not follow the procedure prescribed by the Act -- which procedure is mandatory. It has been urged on behalf of the Corporation that while proceeding to determine the compensation, the Competent Authority relied only upon the material which had been supplied to him by the claimants be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensation determined by the Competent Authority. The Corporation cannot challenge the awards in collateral proceedings, such as the writ petitions. Having failed to approach the District Court as provided for in the Act, the Corporation cannot now be allowed to say that the awards are non est. 14. We will deal with these submissions made by Mr. Pai. We remain totally unimpressed by the contention of Mr. Pai that the Competent Authority was not under an obligation to hear the Corporation. It is true, as Mr. Pai has pointed out, that the word inquiry is not to be found in the Act but in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. The provisions contained in the Rules cannot be said to enlarge the duties of an officer, which are otherwise mentioned with sufficient clarity in the Act itself. For the present, we will proceed by ignoring Rule 4(3). That a party should be heard before any order is passed affecting the interest of that party is a rule which is now well-entrenched in the law of India. At some time, there was a debate as to whether the rule audi alteram partem could be invoked in the case of administrative action. Even that debate has now become obsolete because by series of decisions, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a quasi-judicial body or an authority must hear both the sides before determining any issue which is in lis between the two parties. The law relating to audi alteram partem has a long history in this country and has, in this respect, been lucidly summarised in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna, [1987]164ITR1(SC) . Though that was in the field of administrative law, the principles enunciated therein have naturally application with greater force in the case of quasi-judicial function which is required to be discharged by the Competent Authority. 15. It is for this reason that the rule provided that the Competent Authority shall hold such inquiry as he deems fit. It is true that no detailed procedure which he has to follow while discharging his quasi-judicial function has been prescribed by the rules, but an inquiry he must hold. Inquiry in the context of the function which he is discharging must mean hearing both sides; giving opportunity to each side to meet the case of the other side; disclosing the material relied upon by one side to the other side; and necessarily the duty not to act behind the back of one or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Government which is the acquiring body. The only contesting party is the owner of the land, who is a claimant. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is in the nature of an offer made by him which offer may be accepted by the owner of the land. If he does not accept the offer, he approaches the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. In the District Court, naturally, both the claimant and the Government are heard. There is no right given to the Government to approach the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 18. Mr. Pai thereafter canvassed the view that alternative remedy is provided by the Act itself and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not set aside the award of compensation which could have been got modified by the Corporation by approaching the District Court. Though the existence of an alternative remedy is sometimes held as a bar to the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute bar. On the other hand, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Mr. Pai, namely that there is only a formal infraction of the rule of natural justice if at all and the Competent Authority in the instant case has followed the procedure which was evolved by a consensus in a meeting held on 17th of December, 1983. It has been brought to our attention that this meeting was attended by the M.L.A. of Panvel and high officers of the Corporation, such as the General Manager and the Finance Officer. Mr. P. L Kullarwar, who was the Competent Authority, was also present in the meeting. The Tahsildar, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Panvel, the Sarpanch were also present. It has been mentioned to us that in the meeting it was decided that 80 per cent ad hoc compensation for the land and full compensation for the trees would be paid on 5th of January, 1984, Compensation for the right of user of the land should be paid at ₹ 7,000 per acre. Valuation of the wells would be done by the Deputy Engineer, in Zilla Parishad. Paragraph 5 of the minutes of this meeting is as follows : - Regarding compensation for vegetables and cereals, assessment of damages would be made by Agriculture Officer, after verification at site and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically he has denied that no evidence was recorded by him and also denied that no opportunity was given to the petitioners. The basis of this denial is the fact alleged by him in his affidavit that one Mr. Dalvi, Liaison Officer of the Corporation was deputed by the Corporation as the Corporation's representative. However, we refuse to accept his further assertion that Mr. Dalvi was heard in the matter before deciding the amount of damages to be granted Mr. Ganoo, appearing for Mr. Kullarwar, who was the Competent Authority at the relevant time, has not been able to show that the material on the basis of which the amount of compensation was determined was ever made available for comment or for inspection to the Corporation or its Officers. Mr. R. V. Desai, appearing for the Competent Authority Officer now in office, has made available for our perusal the entire record of these cases. We have gone through each and every page of this record and we do not find that Mr. Dalvi or any other officer of the Corporation was posted with the knowledge of the material on which the claimants based their case, nor is there anything to show that the material was collected in the presence of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
