Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 182 (GUJ)

GOVINDBHAI AMBALAL PATEL v. STATE

1994-06-23

A.P.RAVANI, N.N.MATHUR

body1994
A. P. RAVANI, N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioners pray that the order rejecting their application to make reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act) passed by respondent No. 2-the Special Land Acquisition Officer Bharuch-be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 2 be directed to make reference to the appropriate Court under Section 30 of the Act. ( 2 ) ). Facts in brief be stated According to the petitioners they are tenants of land bearing block No. 89 admeasuring 6 acres and 27 gunthas of village Chavaj Taluka Bharuch District Bharuch According to a the petitioners respondent No. 3 i. e. Bharuch Panjrapole was the landlord. The said land was acquired pursuant to notification dated April 27 1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings culminated into award dated 26-4-1980 As per the award the petitioners have been awarded 25% of the amount of compensation and respondent No. 3 has been awarded 75 of the amount 46 of compensation After the award was declared the petitioners applied to respondent No. 2 i. e. Special Land Acquisition Officer Bharuch for making reference under Section 30 of the Act to 45 the appropriate court for determination of the correct apportionment of the amount of compensation Be it noted that the application was only for apportionment of the amount and not for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The application has been rejected by respondent No. 2 as per order dated. September 27 1990 produced at Annexure C to the petition. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition. ( 3 ) ). While rejecting the application it is inter alia stated in the order that the applicants had not remained present on the dates fixed for hearing and that the amount of compensation was determined with the consent of the acquiring body Pursuant to the consent consent award was passed on April 26 1990 While deciding the application for reference under Section 30 of the Act even if the applicants are not present on the date of hearing the Collector is not absolved of his duty to decide the application on merits. Whether the award has been passed with consent of the acquiring body or not is not a relevant circumstance inasmuch as the application for reference is not for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore this cannot be a relevant circumstance for rejecting the application Similarly the reason that the amount of compensation was paid to the applicants directly by the acquiring body only balance amount of 10% of the compensation was paid at the time of declaration of the award and when the amount was paid no objection was raised also is not a relevant circumstance. This is so because the reference sought is not with regard to enhancement of compensation but it is only with regard to apportionment of compensation. The ground that since the amount of compensation was already paid and the proceedings under the Act were concluded is not a ground on which application under Section 30 of the Act could be rejected. It may be noted that for submitting application under Section 30 of the Act no time limit is prescribed under the Act. ( 4 ) ). Section 30 of the Act reads as follows: 30 Dispute as to apportionment When the amount of compensation has been settled under Sec. 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. For the applicability of the section all that is required is to show that the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11 and that there is a dispute for the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof. There may also be dispute as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. If these conditions are fulfilled it is within the discretion of the collector as to whether the dispute be referred to the Court or not. However the discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and not on extraneous grounds. ( 5 ) ). In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grant v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 . However the discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and not on extraneous grounds. ( 5 ) ). In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grant v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 . In para 19 of the reported decision the following observations have been made by the Honble Supreme Court: the Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered he had it is true to apportion the amount of compensation between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom or of whose claims he has information whether or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation; the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate 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 Payment of compensation therefore under S. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of its liability to pay compensation (subject to any modification by the Court) leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under S. 30 or by a separate suit. ( 6 ) ). In view of the aforesaid settled legal position the Collector is not the final authority to make apportionment of the amount of compensation. It is true that the person raising dispute about apportionment may have an alternative remedy of filing suit Simply because a person has alternative remedy the Collector is not absolved of his duty to make reference under Section 30 of the Act much more so when the necessary conditions for making reference under Section 30 of the Act are fulfilled Ordinarily the amount of compensation has already been paid cannot be a reasonable ground for not exercising discretion under Section 30 of the Act. If that is considered reasonable and sufficient ground for not making reference under Section 30 of the Act the Collector would become the final authority to determine the apportionment of the amount of compensation. This would be against the scheme and object of the Act. ( 7 ) ). In above view of the matter the order passed by the Collector cannot be is sustained and the same is required to be quashed and set aside Respondent No. 2 is further required to be directed to make reference to the appropriate Court on or before August 15 1994 ( 8 ) ). In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated September 27 1990 (Annexure C) rejecting the application for making reference under Section 30 of the Act submitted by the petitioners is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 directed to make reference to the appropriate court on or before Aughst 15 1994 made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .