Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 718 (ALL)

Barki Others v. Bhagwan Das Others

1983-09-27

U.C.SRIVASTAVA

body1983
JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - This revision application is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Barabanki, rejecting the application for impleadment as parties to the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. After adjudication of the amount of compensation, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment of the compensation between Bhagwan Das and Tej Ram on one side and Radly on the other side. The property which was acquired was a grove and it appears that a dispute in respect of the said grove was pending before the Consolidation Officer which was, earlier stayed by the District Judge, and the applicants were claiming right and title over the said grove. The parties have not placed on record any documents which may indicate whether the proceedings have come to an end or are still pending before the same authority or the higher authority. The application was rejected by the District Judge on the ground that the applicants had not put in any objection in the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and that there was no reference, requiring the Court to determine the rights so claimed. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that Order 1, Rule 10, CPC applies to the proceedings in the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act and there being nothing inconsistent in section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act against impleadment. It was also contended that the said section does not indicate in specific terms the parties amongst whom alone the question of apportionment is to be decided. 2. A reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act after the determination of the compensation under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act could be made if no apportionment has been made earlier and there is dispute regarding it. The scope of reference under section 30 of the Act is not the same as that of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is in regard to the correctness of the amount of compensation so adjusted. The scope of reference under section 30 of the Act is not the same as that of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is in regard to the correctness of the amount of compensation so adjusted. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act read as follows: When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 3. It is true, clear, that a reference under Section 30 of the Act can be made only if there is a dispute. Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector can also decide the question of apportionment, if the same is raised, and if the same has or has not been decided the matter can be looked into in proceedings under Section 30 of the Act. Even if apportionment is made by the Collector, in proceedingsunder Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same does not finally decide the rights of the parties in the compensation amount and the matter can be considered in proceedings under Section 30. In Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar AIR 1966 Supreme Court page 237 in which it was also laid down by the Supreme Court that powers which are exercised by the collector under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap, it was held that apportionment made by the collector does not determine finally the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation, his aware is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to adjudicate finally upon the title to compensation; that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under S. 18 or under S. 30 or in a separate suit. In the matter of parties who are to raise the question or can be heard, the difference between Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is obvious. In the matter of parties who are to raise the question or can be heard, the difference between Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is obvious. Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the application is to be made by the person present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. Section 21 of the Act which occurs in the same Chapter as Section 18 of the Act strictly limits the enquiry under Section 18 to consideration of interest of person affected by objection. No such provision relating to Section 30 of the Act exist in the Land Acquisition Act. Further the third proviso to subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act itself protects the rights of real owner to receive the compensation notwithstanding the fact that the same or part has been received by any person whose liability towards the real owner continues, 4. The question of impleadment of the parties came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court long back in Kishan Chand v. Jagannath Prasad and another (ILR. 1902 Vol. XXV 133), it w s held that in view of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act apply Civil Procedure Code, the Court has got power under the provisions of the CPC to add a party to the proceedings, in reference under Section 30 pending before it. The Sind High Court in AIR 1942 Sind page 82, Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Umed Laloo, followed the said case, disagreeing with the decision of Calcutta High Court, taking a view to the contrary. 5. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mt. The Sind High Court in AIR 1942 Sind page 82, Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Umed Laloo, followed the said case, disagreeing with the decision of Calcutta High Court, taking a view to the contrary. 5. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mt. Sakalbaso Kaur v. Brijendra Singh and others AIR 1967 Patna, page 243 held that as no other procedure has been prescribed for a reference under S.30, aid has to be taken of the provisions of the C.P.C. in that respect and there was nothing inconsistent with the application of the provisions of O.1, R.10 in regard to a reference under S.30 of the Act, and the Court has power to add a person as a party if it appears to the Court to be just to do so; and particularly, if the court finds that the presence of such a person may be necessary in order to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all question involved in the case. 6. The Calcutta High Court relying on its earlier decisions in Smt. Indumati Debi v. Tulsi Thakurani. AIR 1942 Calcutta 53 took a contrary view. It was held that the stranger can claim share in the compensation which obviously was decided much before the case of Grant (Supra) decided by the Supreme Court in 1966 in which it was held that, The jurisdiction of the Court in a reference made by the Collector under Section 30 is confined to a consideration of the dispute expressly referred to it by the Collector. An addition of parties may, indeed, be made when the persons who desire to be added as parties do not raise any new dispute but want to place other materials before the Court in connection with the dispute that is referred to it by the Collector. But it cannot be permitted where the question sought to be raised is entirely a new one and is not covered by the reference made by the Collector. 7. In the said Calcutta case an award was made in favour of three persons and dispute was between these three persons as regards their rights to the compensation money and, therefore, a reference was made by the Collector accordingly. 7. In the said Calcutta case an award was made in favour of three persons and dispute was between these three persons as regards their rights to the compensation money and, therefore, a reference was made by the Collector accordingly. In Indumati's case (supra) proviso 3 to subsection 31(2) of the Act was not noticed and from the decision it appears that it was taken as if there was no difference in Sections 18 and 30 in this behalf. The proceedings taken under the earlier Section in the matter of apportionment of compensation were rather taken to be final, which view can not be correct in view of the Supreme Court decision in Grant's case (Supra). 8. The Mysore High' Court in Basalingappa Gavda and others v. Nagamma and another AIR 1969 Mysore 313, agreed with the Indumati's case (supra) and disagreed with the Mt. Sakalbaso's case (Supra) decided by Patna High Court. The Case of Andhra Pradesh in Municipality Nalgonda v. Hakim Mohiuddin and others, AIR 1964 page 305, also cited on behalf of opposite parties, is quite distinguishable as the same is with reference to impleadment of parties in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus in view of the fact that order 1 Rule 10 CPC also applies to the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act in given circumstances and there is nothing in Section 30 of the Act or any other provision which militates against impleadment in proceedings under Section 30 of the Act. In a reference under Section 30 of Act, it is open to a Court to implead other persons interested m compensation as party to the proceedings, as has been held in Kishan Chand's case (Supra). It is, however, for the Court to decide whether in a particular case impleadment is to be allowed or not. 9. The revision application is allowed and the order dated 23.3.1979 passed by the Court of the District Judge Barabanki, is set aside and the Court of the District Judge, is directed to allow the application for impleadment of the parties and, thereafter, proceed with the case. No orders as to costs. (Petition allowed)