Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16206 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Respondent :- Dedicated Freight Corridor Corp. India Ltd. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
In view of the order proposed to be passed hereunder, we are not putting the respondent no. 3 to notice. However, his right to seek variation, alteration or modification in the order, if he feels so aggrieved, is kept reserved.
Dispute is in respect of plot no. 3 area 0.9940 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in dispute') which was recorded in the name of Satpal, Shobha Ram and Vishan, all sons of of late Moonga, each having 1/3 share. One of the co-sharers namely, Satpal who has been arrayed as respondent no. 3, executed a sale deed of an area 0.0683 hectare out of his share in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also alleged that before execution of the sale deed, there has been a private partition between the three co-tenure holders of the land in dispute and accordingly the land, which was adjacent to the railway line, came in the share of Satpal, out of which an area 0.0683 hectare was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The plot in dispute was acquired by the respondent no. 1, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India. An award was prepared and a sum of Rs.10,38,124/- being the compensation for 1/3 share of Satpal was paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no. 3, Satpal made an application before the Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer alleging that the compensation amount has wrongly been paid to the petitioner and the same is liable to be recovered. Proceedings were initiated on the said application and ultimately, the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 03.03.2017 holding that the respondent no. 3 had transferred only an area 0.0683 hectare of his 1/3 share in the land in dispute and that there has been no partition, as such, the respondent no. 3 was entitled to compensation for an area 275 sq. meter whereas the petitioner was entitled to compensation for an area 71 sq. meter. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of Section 20H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989 if there is any dispute with respect to apportionment of compensation amount or any part thereof, the competent authority is under an obligation to refer the dispute for decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority is patently illegal and without jurisdiction.
Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 does not dispute the legal position.
In such view, the impugned orders dated 3.3.2017 and 30.3.2017 passed by the prescribed authority are not liable to be sustained inasmuch as the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to either determine the share of the parties or apportionment of compensation amount once there is a dispute.
Now the question arises in respect of the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner. Since the dispute is in respect of share and accordingly apportionment of the amount of compensation is still to be adjudicated by the competent civil court, we do not find any justification on the part of the petitioner to retain the said amount.
In such circumstances, writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms :
(1) The impugned orders dated 3.3.2017 and 30.3.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur/Addtitional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) are hereby quashed and the said authority is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 20H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989.
(2) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,38,124/- received by him towards compensation within the respondent no. 2, Special Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority (Joint Organization), Saharanpur within three weeks from today.
(3) The respondent no. 2, on receiving the said amount, shall invest in some interest bearing account with a nationalized bank and payment of same along with interest which might accrue on the deposit shall be subject to final outcome of the rights of the parties.
However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 nd