K.N.SETH,J. - (1.) IN exercise of the powers of requisition under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) conferred on him the District Magistrate, Nainital, by an order dated August, 25, 1964, requisitioned plot No. 226-M, measuring 100 Bighas 9 Biswas, situate, in village Tanakpur, Tehsil Khatema, District Nainital, including a passage 40 feet wide towards east of the plot in between plot Nos. 226-M and 232, for erection of a bus station, goods shed, running room and running shed etc., to operate Government's nationalised transport services on the Tanakpur Dharchula route in order to maintain supplies for the army stationed in the border areas. Posses­sion of the land was taken by the U. P. Government Roadways Depart­ment on August 28, 1964. Respondent No 3 in Writ Petition No. 6804 of 1974 made an application to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital, claiming a compensation of Rs. 99,800/- for the use and occu­pation and damages for the land requisitioned till April, 1967 and there­after a sum at the rate of Rs. 2,600/- per month till possession over the land was restored to him, the U. P. Government Roadways filed an objection to the claim preferred by respondent No. 3. Subsequently a notification dated August 23, 1972, was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the land in question. A notification under Section 6 in respect of the said land was issued on October 15,1973. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nainita), by his order dated June 28, 1974, determined the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs. 2,02,873.82 for use and occupation of the land from the date of his dis­possession to August 23, 1972, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further directed that if the amount was not deposited or paid within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent shall be charged on the total amount.
(2.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by Siction3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, constituted the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) with effect from June 1, 1972, in place of the U.P. Govern­ment Roadways. By a notification dated June 30, 1972, all assets and liabilities of the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways were transfened to the Corporation, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 6804 of 1974. In this petition a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari has been prayed for quashing the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer dated June 28, 1974. A writ in the nature of mandamus has further been prayed for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order. In the con­nected petition, Civil Misc. Writ No. 9046 of 1975, the claimant has prayed for quashing that portion of the order by which his claim for compensation in respect of 5 Bighas 5 Biswas additional land illegally taken possession of under the order of requisition and interest claimed has been refused. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the Corporation, challenged the validity of the order on the ground that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the Corporation in the quasi judicial proceedings relating to the determination of the compensation payable to the claimant and that the District Land Acquisition Officer, ignoring the principles laid down in Section 30 of the Act, adopted a wrong basis in determining the amount of compensation. In support of the contention that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the Corporation reference was made to the applica­tions dated March 29 and 30, 1974, made by the Corporation and to the order-sheet of the case. We, howe\er, are not inclined to enter into the controversy whether the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Officer is a quasi judicial proceeding and whether adequate opportunity was afford­ed to the Corporation or whether the District Land Acquisition Officer adopted a wrong basis in determining the amount of compensation as, in our opinion, the Corporation is not entitled to maintain the present petition.
(3.) THE legal character of the order determining compensation under Section 30 of the Act is exactly the same as the award made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act Under both the Acts the autho­rities concerned are enpiaed to determine the amount of compensation on the principles set out in ths Acts after miking an enquiry iuto the valae of the land and into the respective rights and interest of the persons claiming compensation. Dealing with the Lgal character of the award under the Land Acquisition Act the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another ( A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1500.), observed;- "In a sense it is decision of the Collector reached by him after holding an enquiry as prescribed by the Act. It is a decision, inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired; but legally the a.vard cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition, if the owner accepts the offer no further proceeding is required to be taken; the amount is paid and compen­sation proceedings are concluded. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer Section 18 gives him the statutory right.of having the question determined by Court, and it is the amount of compensation which the Court may determine that would bind both the owner and the Collector. In that case it is on the amount thus determined judicially that the acquisition proceedings would be concluded. It is be­cause of this nature of the award that the award can be appropriately described as a tender or offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property for his acceptance." ;