(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondents.
2. Both the petitions are pressed for the relief of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and learned A.G.P. having appeared on advance copy, the petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
3. The simple facts in both the cases are that the petitioners made applications to the Collector concerned in September, 1999 for referring the matter of acquisition of their agricultural land for determination by the Court the claim of additional compensation, as the petitioners were not accepting the award made by the authorities pursuant to acquisition of their agricultural land. There is no dispute about the fact that the applications were made by the petitioners in time and the Collector concerned was required to make reference. However, even as applications for reference of several other interested parties affected by the same acquisition proceeding were made, the applications of the petitioner were withheld, by now for 12 years. Upon learned A.G.P., appearing for the respondents, making a statement that the respondents have no objection to making references, it was asked as to why references were not immediately made. In response to that, an affidavit in vernacular is filed for the respondent to state that some of the petitioners had made repeated applications through different advocates in July, September and October, 1999, due to which it could not be decided as to which application made by which advocate of the petitioners should be referred. It is further stated on oath that if some of the petitioners had pursued the matter with the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector concerned, the references could have been expedited.
4. It appears from the reading of the affidavit and the attitude adopted by the respondents that the respondents have added insult to injury by finding fault with the petitioners when failure to discharge their duty has come to light and could not be defended on any ground. Not only that the petitioners have been deprived for 12 years of the opportunity of pressing their claim before the reference court but the delay would necessarily cause huge additional financial burden for the State Exchequer and it is obviously unfortunate that the State authorities concerned would show their readiness to act in accordance with law only after the petitioners moved this Court at considerable expense for themselves.
5. In view of the above facts and complete absence of any justification for not considering any of the applications of the petitioners for making reference, the petitions have to be allowed with the direction that the references shall now be made in accordance with law under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1854, within a period of 15 days from today. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms and Rule is made absolute with cost quantified at Rs.10,000/- in each petition, which shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioners in each petition, within a period of one month and that amount may subsequently be recovered from such officer who may be found to be responsible for not discharging their duty and for delay in making references.
(KMG Thilake) Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/ ( Mohinder Pal, J.)