Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order of learned District Judge rejecting the application of the land holder filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that under Section 18 of the Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to declare the award as illegal. The Court, therefore, refused to go into other issues framed by it and rejected the application under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.L. Jain firstly urged that the learned Court below had erred in rejecting the application under Section 18 of the Act wholly and it ought to have been decided the other issues even if the issue No. 1 was not decided by the Court below. Secondly, he alleged that directions given by the Collector to whom the said application under Section 18 was initially made, to the Land Acquisition Officer referred to in Annex.2, the amended award dt. 18.08.2000 could not have been given by the Collector suggesting the reduction of the amount of compensation. He relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in Bijoy Kumar Santhalia v. : AIR1989Pat1 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the original award made by the learned Land Acquisition Officer on 20.06.2000, the compensation determined for the land in question acquired for Hindustan Petroliam Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for construction of Depot near Chittorgarh in village Jalampura Ki Nahari was at the rate of Rs. 3,85,000/ - per bigha. The said land being near the National Highway whereas in pursuance to the direction of the Collector amended award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer reducing the rate for the part of land which was not adjacent to the National Highway from the aforesaid rate of Rs. 3,85,000/ - per bigha to Rs. 94,875/ - per bigha. The petitioner, therefore, raised the issue with regard to the power of approval given to the Collector/State Government under Section 11 of the Act. The said proviso says: provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this Sub -section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner accordingly submitted that while the original award was sent for approval, the learned Collector could not have suggested or directed the Land Acquisition Officer to reduce the amount of compensation as aforesaid. On this issue, issue No. 1 was framed by the learned District Judge when the proceedings were transferred to the 'Court' under Section 18 of the Act.;