Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1171 (PNJ)

Harjeet Singh v. Punjab State

2013-08-30

RAJESH BINDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 26.8.1993, passed by the learned court below, whereby the reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), has been dismissed holding that the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, is not competent to go into the issue of title of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property in dispute was owned by Hem Singh. The same was gifted by him to Gurbachan Singh by way of registered gift deed dated 3.4.1946 (Ex. A7). Gurbachan Singh migrated to Kenya and died on 3.5.1981. The appellants being his son and widow were granted letters of administration by the court of competent jurisdiction of Kenya where they were staying. In terms thereof, the property located at Amritsar was inherited by the appellants. When appellant No. 1 came to India on 19.4.1989, he came to know that one Gurnam Singh got executed sale deed of the property in question in favour of respondent No. 3-Amrik Singh on 3.5.1988 on the basis of a forged power of attorney allegedly executed by the appellants in his favour on 7.11.1985. As subsequent to the sale deed, the property in question was acquired by the State, he got the compensation for the same. After the appellants came to India, they found that the property owned by them was fraudulently transferred on the basis of a forged power of attorney. The objections were filed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act before the Collector against the award dated 27.6.1989. The aforesaid objections have been dismissed by the learned court below holding that the court is not competent to go into the issue of title of the property and find out as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 3 is a result of fraud or otherwise. The submission is that the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act is fully competent to go into the issue of title of the property, in question. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon Dr. The submission is that the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act is fully competent to go into the issue of title of the property, in question. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237; Karnail Singh v. Jagir Singh, (1984) 86 P.L.R. 731 ; Vinay Kumar and others v. Parshotam Dass and others, 1992 P.L.J. 77; Gurcharan Singh v. Sadhu Ram and others, 1994 P.L.J. 462; Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 408 and Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni and others v. State of A.P. and others, (2000) 9 S.C.C. 371 . 2. Though memo of appearance dated 16.11.1994 was filed by Shri S.S. Dalal, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 on 17.11.1994, however, at the time of hearing, no one has appeared. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant's case (supra) opined that jurisdiction of the court under Section 30 of the Act is not restricted to the cases of apportionment but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the persons who are entitled to receive compensation. Consideration of issue of title is not excluded though it can be by way of separate suit as well. Relevant portions thereof are extracted below: (18). The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all disputes about the quantum of compensation must be decided by resort to the procedure prescribed by the Act. It is also intended that disputes about the rights of owners to compensation being ancillary to the principal dispute should be decided by the court to which power is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment, but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the persons who are entitled to receive compensation and there is nothing in S. 30 which excludes a reference to the court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of the land has, since the award, devolved. (19) It was strongly pressed that under S. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto according to the award and that implied that a right in the amount of compensation arises to the person to whom compensation is directed to be paid under the award, and, therefore, the only persons who can raise a dispute under S. 30 are those whose names are set out in the award. This contention stands refuted by the plain terms of S. 30. 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 has, 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. 5. The aforesaid judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh's case (supra). 6. In Gurcharan Singh's case (supra), this court opined that in case a dispute regarding title of the property arises, the same can either be decided in a reference under Section 30 of the Act or in a separate suit. To similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal and others v. Sham Lal and others, (2007-1) 145 P.L.R. 822. 7. To similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal and others v. Sham Lal and others, (2007-1) 145 P.L.R. 822. 7. From the enunciation of law, as referred above, it is clear that once a dispute arises regarding title of the property and entitlement of compensation pertaining to the land acquired amongst different persons, the same has to be referred by the Collector to the court for determination, where even title of the property can also be gone into, though a separate remedy of civil suit is also not barred. In the present case as well, the appellants are claiming that in fact they are owners of the property and it had been fraudulently got transferred in the name of the private respondent. As the person, with whom the appellants is disputing the title of the property is party to the proceedings, the issue can very well be determined in the present proceedings. The opinion expressed by the court below in the case in hand is not in conformity with law, hence, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Amritsar on 28.9.2013, who shall either keep the same with him or entrust it to any of the Additional District Judge. As respondent No. 3 remained unrepresented before this court, his service may be effected afresh. Considering the fact that the matter is quite old, the same be disposed of expeditiously. The appeal stands disposed of. Disposed off