- (1.) These are two writ petitions arising out of land acquisition proceedings.
(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petitions briefly are that by notification dated 26-4-1946 the State Government acquired 12 bighas and 12 biswas of land belonging to the Petitioner Ram Chand in petition No. 1272 of 1955. Ram Chand had one-half proprietary share in the above area. The land is situate in village Boola Khatena which is within the Agra Municipality and as such the ZA and LR Act has not affected the rights of the Petitioners. The possession was handed back to the Petitioners in the month of August-September, 1953. Some earth had been removed from the land and on 18-2-55 Sri B. Swarup, Additional Collector, acting as Land Acquisition Officer, awarded Rs. 33-8-6 as compensation to the Petitioners, and awarded under the same award Rs. 44-8-0 as compensation to Sanwalia Ram who is Petitioner No. 1 and who was the tenant of this land. The value of the land according to the Petitioner Ram Chand is Rs. 1,000 per bigha and the damage done to the land was Rs. 5,000 according to Sanwalia Ram in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The Petitioner Ram Chand claimed a sum of Rs. 12,000 as compensation for the land and Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the trees standing thereon. Sanwalia Ram claims as compensation a sum of Rs. 5,000. The Petitioners in both the petitions lave stated that the award was passed behind the back of the two Petitioners and when they came to know of it applications were filed before the Additional Collector disputing the amounts of compensation. The Additional Collector refused to interfere with the award and directed the Petitioners to withdraw the amounts deposited in their names. Thereupon a review application was filed which was rejected. Petition No. 1272 of 1950 was filed on behalf of Ram Chand on 19-12-55 to this Court and notices were ordered to issue on that. The second petition was filed on behalf of Sanwalia Ram on 2-2-1956. Both were ordered to be connected together and notices were issued on that also. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the opposite parties.
(3.) The main contention raised by the Petitioners was that there was a duty cast upon the opposite parties to refer the matter to Court for determination of the amount of compensation if there was any dispute as regards the compensation under Section 35(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is agreed between the parties now that the acquisition was a temporary acquisition and it was governed by the provisions of Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition took place in the year 1946 and the possession was handed over back to the landlord and the tenant sometimes in September, 1953. The award which is the subject-matter of controversy between the parties was given sometimes in February, 1955. Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act provide as follows: 35. (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land are needed for any public purpose, or for a Company, the appropriate Government may direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same, for such term as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from the commencement of such occupation. (2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to the persons interested in such land of the purpose for which the same is needed, and shall, for the occupation and use thereof for such term as aforesaid, and for the materials if any to be taken therefrom, pay to them such compensation either in a gross sum of money, or by monthly or other periodical payments as shall be agreed upon in writing between him and such persons respectively. (3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court.;