- (1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to impugn the order passed by the second respondent, i.e., the Collector, Land Acquisition Garhshankar, on February 4, 1975 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners and their two brothers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) The principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the objections filed by the petitioners and their two brothers under Section 5-A of the Act could not have been dismissed by the Collector, who was only empowered to make a recommendation to the appropriate Government and it was the Government who had to make a final decision in the matter. It is indeed true that this point was not specifically raised in the writ petition, but as it goes to the root of the matter, touching upon the very jurisdiction of the Collector to pass a final order disposing of the objections, the counsel for the petitioners has been allowed to urge the point. So far as the factual position is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, were really rejected by the second respondent by means of the impugned order (Copy Annexure P-2). This is so stated in the penultimate part of the order. Mr. Brar, learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General, has not disputed that under Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector was not competent to dispose of the objections himself and all that he could do, was to make a recommendation to the Government. He has, however, tried to construe this order as a mere recommendation and has urged that the Collector had ordered that all the papers may be sent to the Government. The argument is, however, misplaced. The Collector, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, came to the clear conclusion about the justification for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners. The words "The objection is therefore rejected" can by no stretch of imagination be treated as a mere recommendation. As regards the forwarding of the papers to the Government, the Collector directed that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer should prepare the Draft Notification under Section 16 of the Act and the papers along with the said Draft Notification be sent to the Government. This part of the order instead of supporting the contention of the learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General, rather goes to show that the Collector decided to proceed further to the stage of issue of Notification under Section 6 of the Act, which could have been done only after rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. Apart from this, in the return of the second respondent, it was reiterated in paragraph 7 that the objections filed by the petitioners had been heard and were not allowed. The action of the second respondent in rejecting the objections instead of making a recommendation, as required under the law, clearly transgressed his jurisdiction in the matter and the order passed by him has to be quashed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners were small land-owners and could not be deprived of their land for the purpose of providing house sites to landless persons. The matter would be best decided by the Authorities concerned and not by this Court, especially when it is proposed to send back the case to the Authorities for re-consideration.;