JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17. 05. 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 3076/02, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition before this Court with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ order of direction directing the respondents to release the payment of compensation of Rs. 4,53,257/- immediately in favour of the petitioner. THE petitioner averred in the writ petition that he is the member of Scheduled Caste. He was khatedar tenant of land bearing Khasra No. 410/1/1 measuring 19 biswa (2831 sq. yards residential and 43 sq. yards Barani ). THE said land was acquired by respondents. A notice u/s 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioner (Annexure 1 ). THEreafter, a final award was passed and a sum of Rs. 4,53,257/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner. THE petitioner further pleaded that in spite of awarding compensation in his favour, he has not been paid the amount of compensation. He moved an application before Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle III, Jaipur requesting him to release the amount of compensation. He also submitted that the possession of land has already been taken and construction of the high level road bridge over river (Bandi) has taken place but, the amount of compensation in lieu of acquired land has not been paid. Subsequently, the petitioner was told that a cheque of the aforesaid amount was prepared but, it was given to some other Ramlal and soon after when respondents came to know about it, then they lodged FIR No. 386/97 at Police Station, Dadar, district Jaipur, which was registered u/s 420 IPC, a copy of which has also been placed on record as Annexure 3 with the writ petition. THE petitioner ultimately served a notice of demand of justice but, amount was not paid and under these circumstances, he filed the present writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide its impugned order dated 17. 05. 2002 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the police in investigating into the matter, therefore, the present writ petition is pre-mature and the same is not maintainable. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed the present special appeal. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents. The respondents filed reply to special appeal on 18th Sept. , 2004, wherein it has not been disputed that petitioner was khatedar tenant of the land in dispute and his land was acquired. It has been admitted that the award dated 12. 08. 1997 for Rs. 4,53,257/- was passed in favour of the petitioner-appellant. In para 4 of the reply, it has been averred that on 20. 08. 97, the Account Payee Cheque of Rs. 4,53,257/- was issued in favour of Ramlal S/o Nathulal and on the identification of Shri Idu Khan and Munshi Khan, it was given to Shri Ramlal. It has also been stated in the reply that afterwards, it was noticed that the Account Payee Cheque, which was given to Shri Ramlal was forged person and not the real Ramlal and FIR No. 386/97 was lodged by a the Public Works Department. The police investigated into the matter and now challan has been filed in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the matter is sub-judice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even as per reply of the respondents, it is clear that land of the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1997. The possession of the land was taken by the respondents and bridge has already been constructed over it. The respondents have also admitted that award dated 12. 8. 1997 was passed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per para 4 of the reply, it is clear that amount of compensation was not paid to the petitioner, who was khatedar tenant of the land in dispute but, it was paid to some other Ramlal, who represented himself as Ramlal. The submission of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition and the direction ought to have given to the respondents to make the payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner-appellant. In case, FIR has been registered then, only by lodging the FIR or filing the challan or even if, accused are convicted, the petitioner will not get the amount of compensation for no favour on his part. He further argued that appellant is a member of Scheduled Caste and he has been deprived the amount of compensation for last 7 years unnecessarily in spite of the fact that possession of his land was taken in the year 1997 and he is make request for amount of compensation from pillar to post.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have already prepared the cheque of the amount of compensation and the same has been paid to one Ramlal, who was subsequently found to be forged person and not the real Ramlal. THEir argument is that they have already lodged the F. I. R. in the matter and the challan has already been filed. THE matter is sub-judice before the Criminal Court. From the arguments of both the sides and as per pleadings of the parties, there is no dispute the petitioner was recorded khatedar tenant of land khasra No. 410/1/1 measuring 19 biswas (2831 sq. yards residential and 43 Sq. yards Barani ). There is no dispute that possession of the land had already been taken by the respondents and award dated 12. 8. 97 was passed in favour of the petitioner-appellant for Rs. 4,53,257/ -. From the reply of the respondents, it is also clear that the said amount of compensation has not been paid to the petitioner-appellant till date. In case, respondents have paid the cheque of the amount of compensation to wrong person then, petitioner cannot suffer for the wrong action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner- appellant is entitled to the amount of compensation in respect of his land acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Mere filing of of FIR or challan in the criminal Court, will not compensation the petitioner in any manner. Even if, an accused is ultimately convicted then, the petitioner will get nothing for his land, which has been acquired by the respondents. It is for the respondents to file a suit for recovery of the amount from the culprits and/or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the defaulting officer or official, in addition to criminal action already initiated by them by lodging FIR, but, in any circumstances the respondents are duty bound to make the payment of compensation to the petitioner-appellant for his land, which has been acquired by them. As per Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was a duty of the Collector/land Acquisition Officer to tender payment of compensation awarded to the appellant according to the award. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it was a statutory duty of the respondents to make the payment of the compensation to the petitioner-appellant for his acquired land and in not making payment of the same, the respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty. In these circumstances, we allow this special appeal and direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs. 4,53,257/- to the petitioner in view of award dated 12. 8. 97 passed in favour of the petitioner-appellant. ;