STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted facts are that a notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on 20/4/1990 proposing to acquire 220 bighas of land approximately for construction of 765 k. v. Sub-station and staff quarters at Gagol, District. Meerut by the U. P. State Electricity Board. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 22/12/1990. By operation of Section 11-A, the award should be made within two years from the date of the publication of Section 6, declaration i. e. on or before 21/12/1992. Before it could be made, it would appear that Rajiv Gupta and Ors. , the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 33863 of 1992 in the High court at Allahabad seeking direction to the respondents to take possession of the lands after paying them due compensation. On 23/11/1992 the High court directed the appellants to take a decision for passing the award before 21/12/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated 20/12/1992 wrote to the Commissioner, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Lucknow, pointing out the dispute of title to certain items of the land under acquisition; to accept the conditional award proposed in that behalf and also requested the Commissioner to accord him prior approval to pass the proposed award. The approval was not given. Nonetheless, the High court in the impugned order dated 26/4/1993 allowed the writ petition and directed the State to take possession of the lands and pay the compensation immediately, as per the award dated 20/12/1992. The appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) On 11/3/1994, we issued notice. Shri Markandeya, learned counsel appeared for Rajiv Gupta and Ors. , and by an order dated 12/12/1993 we upheld the award dated 20/12/1992 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount in the reference court within a period of four weeks from that date and if there is any dispute with regard to the title, thedispute would be inquired into under Section 30 of the Act. Thereafter, review petition was filed stating that no award has been made on 20/12/1992. Then, we issued notice to produce the record. After perusing the record we found that it was a "proposed award" made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20/12/1992 and sought approval of the commission which was not given. Therefore, we issued the notice on the review petition on 11/3/1994.

(3.) Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the State, contended that a reading of S. 11 and 11-A would indicate that unless prior approval of the appropriate government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate government was obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer, he has no power to pass the award. He also stated that the government had issued statutory order directing that if the value of the acquisition exceeds Rs. 1 crore, the prior approval of the Commissioner, Board of Revenue is mandatory. Before 21/12/1992 no prior approval was given and therefore there was no award made in the eye of law. What the Land Acquisition Officer communicated to the Commissioner, Board of Revenue, was only "proposed award" for prior approval. The date, 20/12/1992, is date on which he wrote the letter to the Commissioner seeking prior approval and that date could not and should not be considered to be a date on which the award was made. Therefore, the High court was wrong in its conclusion that the award was made on 20/12/1992. Shri Markandeya, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that pursuant to the direction issued by the court on 23/11/1992, the Collector was required and made the award and sent it, though styled as a proposed award, to the Commissioner for approval. Except getting approval nothing further need to be done by the Collector and therefore the High court is right in its holding that the Collector made the award on 20/11/1992. He being the statutory authority, there was no need for him to get any prior approval of the State government or the Commissioner, nor could he be bound by it. Therefore, in the eye of law there is an award passed under Section 11 of the Act. He also further contended that when the Collector passed the award, pursuant to the direction issued by the court, the authorities are bound to comply with the directions and, therefore, the final order passed by the High court in the impugned judgment is consistent with its interim directions issued on 23/11/1992.