V. E. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) PLOT no. 305 with an area of 17.56 acres situate in village Samrathpur, Tahsil Auraiya of Dtisrict Etawah was sirdari land of petitioner, Farhat Ullab. In the year 1964, possession was taken over it in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the U. P. Bhoomi Evam Jal Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1963 (for brief, the Adhiniyam). It was in connection with the Afforestation Project, Anepur, possession was taken only over 12 acres land of Farhat Ullah.
(2.) SECTION 16 of the Adhiniyam envisages that after taking possession, the Collector of the District will make an enquiry and determine the compensation payable for the period during which the land remains in temporary possession in pursuance of the provisions of SECTION 14 and also about the person entitled thereto. Procedure for determination of this amount is provided in SECTION 16 itself of which sub-section (8) provides that the compensation determined shall be paid in cash in yearly instalments to the persons found entitled thereto and such payment shall be final and in full discharge of the State Government and its officers from all liability to pay compensation for the period covered by the payment. SECTION 17 then provides for restoration of possession to the person who is entitled to it. When the petition was filed in this Court in May 1975, the respondents were still in possession over the petitioner's land. However, possession was restored to the petitioner on June 10, 1975 so that no relief in that regard is now sought by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondents were under a statutory obligation to pay compensation to him for the period that they were in temporary possession of his land, they have not done so, in spite of the fact that at one stage in the year 1975, the Collector had determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year which had not been challenged by the respondents by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division under sub-section (6) of section 16. The case set up in the counter affidavit sworn in the writ petition and in the stay application by Raj Narain Gaur, accountant in the office of the Bhommi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Etawah is that the aforesaid order determining the amount of compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year had been passed by the Collector in ignorance of the full facts and that the said order had been cancelled by the Collector when true facts were brought to his notice. It has also been asserted that the petitioner had agreed that no amount by a ay of compensation need be paid to him. The case further is that, in any event, no claim having been lodged by the petitioner within the period prescribed under Section 16, be is not entitled to any amount by way of compensation. Section 16 runs thus : "16. Compensation for period of possession (1). As soon as may be after the date of taking possession of the land, the Collector shall make an inquiry and determine the compensation payable for every year or part of the year during which the land remains under such temporary possession of and also the person entitled thereto. (2) For the purpose of determining compensation and the person entitled thereto, the Collector shall issue a general notice in the prescribed form and manner requiring persons concerned to file their claims in the prescribed manner by the date fixed in the notice, provided that the Collector may, for reasons to be recorded, extend such date. (3; The Collector shall also fix a date for hearing of the claims and shall on that date, or in case of the hearing being adjourned to any other date, or such other date, hear all the evidence that may be produced by a claimant and he may take other evidence as he considers necessary. (4) For the purpose of determining the compensation and the persons entitled thereto, the Collector shall have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 190S in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) enforcing attendance of any person and examining a person on oath or affirmation; (b) issuing commission for examination of any witnesses or for local investigation; (c) compelling production of any document ; and (d) passing such interim orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice. (E) In determining the compensation regard snail be had to : (a) the average net annual income from the land derived during the three years immediately preceding the date of temporary possession being taken and in the case of land having no such income, the average net annual income, if any, from similar land in the locality derived during that period ; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person as a result of dispossession ; (c) the damage, if any, caused or likely to be caused to the land ; and (d) such other factors as may appear to the Collector to be relevant for the purposes of such determination. (E) Any person aggrieved by a determination made under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of such determination, file an appeal before the Commissioner, who may pass such orders thereon as he deem fit. (7) The Commissioner may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. (8) The compensation so determined shall be paid in cash in yearly instalments to the person found entitled thereto under this section and such payment shall be final and full discharge of the State Government and its officers from all liability to pay compensation for the period covered by the payment, but shall not prejudice the right of any other person to compensation which he may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom payment has been made under this Act."
(3.) A perusal of this provision makes it clear that statutory obligation has been cast upon the Collector to make an enquiry and determine the amount of compensation payable to the person whose land is temporarily taken possession of under the provisions of the Act. Further, the Collector is required to issue a general notice in the prescribed form and manner requiring the persons concerned to file their claims in the prescribed manner for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and the person to whom it is payable. There is serious dispute between the parties whether such general notice was issued by the Collector in the instant case. It is not necessary for us however, to go into this aspect of the matter in the view that we are taking. Assuming that the order fixing the amount of compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year had been cancelled by the Collector, it is clear that the Collector has to fix that amount and to make payment thereof to the person entitled thereto. We may notice the argument of Sri M. A. Qadir, learned counsel for the petitioner, that apart from making a bald statement that the order fixing the amount of compensation had been cancelled by the Collector, the respondents have not produced any document in these proceedings sustaining such a plea. True it is that the actual order by which the Collector cancelled the earlier order has not been produced, we find it mentioned in annexure "A-1" to the counter affidavit sworn by Gaur in the stay matter that on the record there is a report of the Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari dated 18-9-74 According to which the Collector had cancelled the earlier order fixing the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per year. Be that as it may, as said earlier, the Collector is under a statutory obligation to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner for the undoubted period of possession of his land by the respondents under the provisions of the Act. We direct him to do so in accordance with law and make payment of the amount, so determined, in a lump sum within a period of three months from the date of such determination. The petition succeeas to that extent. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.;