Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2893 (ALL)

MEGHRAJ v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-11-27

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petition challenges an order dated 11th July, 2013 of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar. The dispute in the present case is between the petitioners who claim to be the sons of deceased Kunwar Pal alias Balwant and 8th respondent who claims to be his daughter in regard to the apportionment of compensation payable in pursuance of an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Upon the death of Kunwar Pal, the Khatauni was mutated in pursuance of an order dated 30th August, 2010 to reflect the name of 1st and 2nd petitioners as his sons. Subsequently, this order was recalled by the Naib Tehsildar on 14th November, 2011 ex parte in proceedings initiated by the 8th respondent under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land Revenue Act’) with a direction that the name of the 8th respondent shall be mutated. On an application filed by the petitioners, the order dated 14th November, 2011 was recalled and the revenue proceedings were restored to file. Consequently the revenue proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act are pending. 3. In this background, the 8th respondent made a claim before the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) for the payment of compensation as daughter of deceased Kunwar Pal. The petitioners objected to the disbursement of the compensation to the 8th respondent. Rejecting the objections of the petitioners, which were lodged on 2nd January, 2012, the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) by the impugned order dated 11th July, 2013 directed for payment of compensation to the 8th respondent subject to the filing of an undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will indemnify any claim in that regard. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) had no jurisdiction to decide and determine who amongst the rival claimants namely the petitioners and the 8th respondent were entitled to compensation in regard to the lands of Kunwar Pal which had been acquired. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) had no jurisdiction to decide and determine who amongst the rival claimants namely the petitioners and the 8th respondent were entitled to compensation in regard to the lands of Kunwar Pal which had been acquired. It was urged that having regard to the dispute which had arisen between the petitioners and the 8th respondent, the Additional Collector could have either made a Reference under Section 30 of the Act or in the alternative could have relegated the parties to proceeding in a Suit, but it was clearly not open to the Additional Collector to decide which amongst the conflicting claims for the apportionment of the compensation should be allowed. 5. The law on the subject is clear and has been laid down ever since the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 . Under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Collector is required to make an award of the true area of the land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and the apportionment of the compensation among all 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. Section 30 stipulates that when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. When the Collector makes the payment, the third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 provides that nothing contained therein shall affect liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of compensation to pay it to the person lawfully entitled thereto. 6. In Dr. Grant (supra), the Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Act, the Collector is not enjoined to make a reference. He may relegate the person raising the dispute to agitate the same in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared in the award. 6. In Dr. Grant (supra), the Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Act, the Collector is not enjoined to make a reference. He may relegate the person raising the dispute to agitate the same in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared in the award. At the same time, the Collector is not authorized to decide the conflicting rights of the parties and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or part thereof is payable, the Collector has been given the power to refer such dispute to the decision of the Reference Court. 7. In the present case, the Additional Collector was clearly placed on notice of the fact that there was a serious dispute between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in regard to heir-ship of the deceased Kunwar Pal. As noted earlier, the names of the petitioners were initially mutated in the Khatauni. That order was set aside ex parte but the ex parte order setting aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioners was recalled when objections were filed by the petitioners and the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act are still pending. 8. In this background, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the 9th respondent clearly transgressed the limits of his jurisdiction when he directed that the compensation should be released to the 8th respondent despite having notice of the conflicting claim of the petitioners. The Additional Collector held that once the land was acquired, the revenue proceedings will necessarily came to an end. This reason given by the Additional Collector cannot be accepted, more particularly when the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act were initiated by the 8th respondent and there was a serious conflicting claim between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in regard to succession to the estate of the deceased before the Additional Collector. 9. In the circumstances, the only proper course for the Additional Collector was to have referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the decision of the Court. We, therefore, allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) dated 11th July, 2013. 9. In the circumstances, the only proper course for the Additional Collector was to have referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the decision of the Court. We, therefore, allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) dated 11th July, 2013. In consequence, we direct the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) to refer the dispute in regard to the apportionment of compensation between the petitioners and the 8th respondent to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. During the pendency of these proceedings, an order was passed by the Division Bench on 6th November, 2013 directing that the amount which had been paid over to the 8th respondent and which was still available in the account of the 8th respondent in the Oriental Bank of Commerce bearing Account No. 15062191024496, will not be paid over to the 8th respondent without taking leave of the Court. 10. We direct that the Oriental Bank of Commerce shall issue a Bank Draft in the amount of Rs. 57,91,500/- together with the accrued interest, if any, in favour of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar. The amount shall be held by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) in the appropriate head to abide by the order which would be passed in reference. By the order of the Court dated 6th November, 2013, the 9th respondent, who had passed the impugned order was directed to remain present in the Court. An unconditional apology has been tendered on behalf of the 9th respondent and in the circumstances, we are not inclined to pursue the proceedings against the 9th respondent any further. We, however, caution the 9th respondent to exercise greater degree of care in future. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.