- (1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector not to disburse compensation to respondents No.8 to 12 in lieu of the acquired land, as the petitioner has filed a petition, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short herein after referred to as "the Act"), before the Land Acquisition Collector. It is also prayed that the aforementioned officer be directed to forward the petition, filed under Section 30 of the Act, to the District Judge for apportionment of compensation.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents No.8 to 12 executed an agreement to sell land, bearing Khewat No.662/451 Min, Khatoni No.687, Rect/Khasra No.1796//1/2 & 2/2, measuring 6 bigha 15 biswa 16 biswasi, situated in the revenue estate of village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon in favour of one Satbir Singh son of Ram Kishan. The latter entered into an agreement to sell with Trilok Chaudhary son of Daya Ram Chaudhary. The original land owners thereafter entered into a collaboration agreement with the petitioner through its Director Aruna Chaudhary. It is contended that the State of Haryana issued a notification, under Section 4 of the Act, dated 23.6.2003, followed by a notification, under Section 6 of the Act, dated 16.4.2004, which was eventually followed by an award, passed by the Collector on 10.11.2004. As respondents No.8 to 12 and Satbir had received a large sum of money for execution of the agreements to sell, and the collaboration agreement, the petitioner, in order to protect his financial interest, filed an application, before the Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 30 of the Act, praying that compensation be not disbursed to the private respondents. It is, thus, prayed that as the petitioner has filed an application, under Section 30 of the Act, a direction be issued to the Collector to forthwith forward the application to the District Judge, as the Collector has no jurisdiction to keep the matter pending.
(3.) Counsel for the State of Haryana has not denied that the petitioner has filed an application for withholding the amount of compensation. It is contended that after the filing of the aforementioned application, the Collector sent notices to both parties but the petitioner did not appear. It is further contended that the petitioner has not appended any document with the aforementioned application.;