1980 PLP 212 (CLC)

5. The L.D.A. issued a -revised public notice dated 17th of October, 1977 inviting applications for exemption from such persons who pur chased land on or before 23rd June, 1976. The intending applicants were also asked to submit their original documents of ownership before 5th of November, 1977. The owners who had already submitted their applications were asked not to do so again.

6. The petitioner who was covered by the second notice, made an application on Ist November, 1977, in pursuance to it. She submitted alongwith it all the documents of ownership. She also applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for `No objection certificate' but the same was refused vide his order dated 19th July, 1978 for the reason that her name had not been included in the revenue record as an owner, till the announcement of award. He advised her to tile an appeal. The peti tioner took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, but the same was rejected by him on 29th of July, 1978 as it was barred by time. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition challenging only the refusal on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and the L. D. A.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the respondent No. 2 had invited applications from all the owners who purchased land on or before 23rd June, 1976 the petitioner was entitled to apply and the respondent No. 2 was obliged to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 1t is argued that if the L. D. A. intended to go strictly in accordance with the list of awardees prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector, it would not have invited applications alongwith the original deeds of ownership and various other documents. He urged that despite the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector and the Commissioner refused to grant any relief to the petitioner, the L. D. A. in view of its offer and undertaking and for the documents supplied ought to have recognised her as an owner and allowed exemption.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the h. D. A. recognised only such persons as owners whose names had been supplied to it by the Land Acquisition Collector. He further submitted that the L. D. A. itself did not enter into any inquiry and would not substitute a name of any owner for the one supplied by the Land Acquisi tion Collector. As for the second invitation for the exemption, the learned counsel submitted that having realised that the L. D. A. became the owner in law only on taking possession of the property, it allowed all purchasers till that date to be recognised for the purpose of exemption. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, ought to have informed the Land Acquisition Collector of the change of ownership before the award so that he could verify her contention and include her name in the list of awardees. In the alternative, she could get the record corrected in appeal.

9. The other reason for refusing to accommodate the petitioner, as explained by the learned Counsel for the respondent, was that conferring such a power on the officials of the L.D.A. would facilitate corruption which the L.D.A. wanted to avoid. The learned counsel also disowned the contents of the two public notices asking for the production of the owner ship documents and submitted that the same was against law and without permission of the competent authority. He however, could not give any convincing reply to the objection as to why the L. D. A. did not withdraw or clarify the illegal notices and why did it put the interested persons to undue expense and inconvenience ? The learned counsel also did not state if any disciplinary action had been taken against those who acted so illegally and without . authority. The position taken by the learned counsel makes it clear that the L. D. A, would, in such a situation need only the identification of the owners or awardees, and a certificate from the Land Acquisition Collector that no compensation had been paid to them for the acquired lands.

10. The Housing Act under which the present proceedings arose provides for following three independent and distinct agencies and speci fies their sphere of action with exactitude- (a) the Official Developing Agency (L. D, A, in this case) has to prepare a housing scheme with details as given in rule

6. It has also to provide the manner of payment, the form of payment and combination of such forms under rule 4 ; (b) the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to publish a notifica tion under section 4 of the Housing Act that land is required or likely to be required for the housing scheme. The Deputy Commissioner can also withdraw that notification under section 19 ; (c) all the acquisition proceedings have to be conducted by the Collector who also issues notices to owners and other interested persons and makes award under section 7 as to-- (i) true area of land, (ii) amount of compensation, and (iii) apportionment of compensation among the Persons interested. The order of the Collector is subject to appeal and the findings there in are final and immune from any action in any Court.

11. It is to be noted that the Government, the Official Developing Agency and the persons interested. are the three parties before the Collector. Any one of them can file an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of the Collector. The order in appeal is final and none of the parties can, thereafter criticize or go behind the award or the amended award, as the case may be, as to area, amount or the awardees or challenge it before any other authority. Similarly none of the others can ask an awardee to produce any evidence, other than the award, or a 'no objection certificate', as a proof of the fact that he is the awardee.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied much on the contents of the two notices but I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the demand for production of documents of title by the I_.D.A. was unauthorised and devoid of any legal support. The officials of the L. D. A. cannot sit on the judgment of the Collector. On becoming conscious of it, the L. D. A. should have rectified the situation. 1t must have caused undue inconvenience and expense to the awardees and unnecessary and wasted effort on the part of the concerned officials of the L. D. A. Thus the findings given by the Collector or the Commis sioner in appeal as regards area, amount of compensation and name of the awardee are find.

13. As stated above the manner or the form of compensation is to be decided by the L. D. A., under the rule

4. The cash compensation is payable by the Collector under section 15 read with rule

5. The developed plots in lieu of compensation under section 11 read with rule 4 and the exempted plot in L. D. A. schemes, are to be given by the L. D. A, in accordance with the instructions of the Government. The demand of a 'no objection certificate' that no compensation has been paid to the awardee by the Collector is, therefore, unexceptionable. Further, such a certificate is binding on the L. D. A. as to the name of the awardee, the area and that 'no compensation has been paid'. The L. D. A. can in no case go behind that.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner in this case is not the awardee She is relying on the public notices issued by the L. D. A., and is of the vie that as the L. D. A., demanded copies of the revenue record and the title deeds, it shall go through the same and substitute the petitioner' name for that of the awardee who bad in fact sold the land in dispute to her. Thus what she wants is either the L. D. A. or the Collector may amend the list of awardees and substitute the name of the petitioners for' that of the previous owner.

15. As discussed above, the respondents, as functionaries under the law, are bound by the award of the Collector under section 7 of the Housing Act. Both the respondents performed their duties lawfully an validly. The blame lies squarely on the petitioner as she despite notices did not ask the Collector to consider the registered sale in her favour. The sale was made on 14tb June, 1976, whereas, award was given on 15th October 1976. She had about 4 months at her disposal get a muta tion sanctioned. She could even in the absence of a mutation prove before the Collector in the inquiry under section 7 that she was the real owner.

16. The Collector could act, even on information and in the absence of the petitioner, to declare her an awardee under section 7(iii), if she had intimated him. She failed even before the Commissioner to show that she had a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Even in this Court, the Commissioner has not been impleaded as a party. There was thus no illegality committed by any of the public functionaries and, therefore, it cannot be said that any of the respondents acted without lawful authority.

17. It may, however, be observed that none of the observations made above should affect the right of the petitioner, against the awardee or to recover the compensation, under any process of law available to her. This order also will not debar the L. D. A. to recognise in case of a hard. ship, a vendee, in case the awardee acknowledges him as the vendee, and admits the registered sale-deed executed prior to its taking possession. 1n view of the above, this petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.