Delhi High Court
Jagdish Chand Saini S/O Late Shri ... vs Land Acquisition Collector ... on 3 March, 2005
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: S Kumar, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner's father (Suraj Mal) owned considerable land in village Rajapur Kalan and Bhorgarh. He is said to have died intestate on 2nd October, 2000.
2. The land owned by Suraj Mal was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) by Notifications dated 22nd August, 2001 and 26th July, 2002 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act.
3. It appears that the Petitioner's cousin Sucha Singh set up a Will dated 31st March, 1994 said to have been left behind by Suraj Mal. In terms of the Will, the Petitioner was not entitled to any part of the estate of the deceased but his two brothers, that is, Babulal and Nanak Chand were entitled to a share in the property along with Sucha Singh.
4. It further appears that initially the Petitioner's brothers, that is, Babulal and Nanak Chand disputed the existence of the Will but later on, according to the Petitioner, they joined hands with Sucha Singh with a view to deprive the Petitioner of his share in the compensation for acquisition of land.
5. In so far as the land in Rajapur Kalan is concerned, an Award in respect of the land was made on 28th June, 2004 and it was determined that Babulal was entitled to 2/3rd share in the compensation while Nanak Chand was entitled to 1/3rd share in the compensation. This determination was, of course, on the basis of the Will said to have been left behind by Suraj Mal. The compensation determined on the above basis has been paid to Babulal and Nanak Chand, to the exclusion of the Petitioner.
6. As regards the land in village Bhorgarh, an Award was made on 7th May, 2004 In respect of this land, there was no dispute that Babulal and Nanak Chand were entitled to 1/3rd share each in the compensation, which has since been handed over to them. The Petitioner has claimed 1/3rd share in the compensation in respect of village Bhorgarh but apprehends that he will be deprived of his share, in the same manner as he has been deprived of his share in the compensation pertaining to village Rajapur Kalan
7. However, since there is a dispute in regard to the compensation payable to the Petitioner, the official Respondents have referred the disputes to the learned Additional District Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, in respect of both villages Rajapur Kalan and Bhorgarh.
8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Will said to have been executed by his father is a forged and fabricated document and, in fact, his father died intestate. The Petitioner says that he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the compensation due for the acquisition of land in respect of both the villages Rajapur Kalan and Bhorgarh. On these broad submissions, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the references made to the learned Additional District Judge and claims payment of the rightful compensation due to him.
9. We are of the view that the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. There is, first of all, a serious dispute about the Will said to have been left behind by the Petitioner's father. It is not possible for us to determine under Article 226 of the Constitution whether the Will is genuine or not. It is true that at one point of time Babulal and Nanak Chand supported the case of the Petitioner that there was no Will in existence but for some reason they seem to have changed their stand and have accepted the Will. A dispute having been raised in this regard, it is only appropriate that the issue should be decided by the competent court. Consequently, we do not see any error in the action of the official Respondents in making a reference under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge.
11. We find from a perusal of the record that the Petitioner himself had, while making applications for release of the compensation in his favor made an alternative prayer that in case it is not possible to release the amount, then the matter should be referred to the District Judge under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Reference in this regard had been made to his applications dated 20th June, 2003, 2nd/23rd July, 2003, and 24th November, 2003. The action taken by the official Respondents in making the reference is, therefore, consistent with the request made by the Petitioner.
12. It was stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that in respect of village Rajapur Kalan, the entire compensation has been paid to Babulal and Nanak Chand, including the share of the Petitioner. It is submitted that this is totally illegal and ought not to have been done. This may eventually be correct and, therefore, we make it clear that if it is ultimately found that the Petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd share in respect of the compensation in village Rajapur Kalan, Babulal and Nanak Chand, why are parties to this writ petition will be bound to make good to the Petitioner his share of the compensation.
13. As regards compensation pertaining to acquisition of land in village Bhorgarh, Babulal and Nanak Chand have been released their share (1/3rd each) of the compensation amount. There is no dispute in this regard. As regards the balance 1/3rd share claimed by the Petitioner, the learned Additional Judge should not release it to anybody until the dispute under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act is decided and the entitlement, if any, of the Petitioner is determined.
14. On the above facts, we are of the view that the Petitioner cannot have any grievance if the disputes with regard to payment of compensation have been referred to the learned Additional District Judge under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act.
15. We find no merit in the petition. Dismissed.
