S.S.KANG, J. - (1.) NIKKA Ram and twenty -two other petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot, Improvement Trust, Pathankot (hereinafter called the Trust), respondent No. 3 to give an award on the application filed by the petitioners in reply to the notice issued by them, under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the lands under the petitioner's cultivation which have been acquired by the State.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are old tenants of the lands in dispute. The land under petitioners' cultivation was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the Trust in the year 1976. Respondent No. 3 issued notices to the petitioners under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act inviting them to file claims regarding the lands under their cultivation. The petitioners filed claims through their learned counsel.
(3.) THE petitioners were not summoned by the Collector nor were they given any opportunity of being heard. He announced his award on 2nd June, 1976. The Land Acquisition Collector did not give any finding on the claims made by the petitioners. He neither accepted them nor rejected them. He has in fact not made even reference to the petitioners claims in the award. Dissatisfied, the petitioners have filed the writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Respondent No. 3 did not care to file any return at that stage. Though the writ petition is pending since 1976, he has not filed any return uptill today. A return on behalf of Trust, respondent No. 2 has been filed in which the pertinent averments have not been replied because they relate to respondent No. 3. The Collector has not come forward to state categorically that the petitioners had not filed claims in reply to the notices issued, under section 9 of the Act. It was the bounden duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to put in a return and reply to the allegation made by the petitioners that they had filed claims is reply to notices under Section 9 of the Act. In this situation there is no option but to allow this petition and I order accordingly. I direct that the Land Acquisition Collector respondent No. 3, shall decide the claim application filed by the petitioners in response to notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act expeditiously, if possible within six months. Petition allowed.;