Patna High Court
Mohammad Anwar Hasan vs Land Acquisition Officer And Ors. on 17 September, 1962
Equivalent citations: AIR1963PAT101, AIR 1963 PATNA 101
ORDER Kamla Sahai, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: Some land of the petitioner and others has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land on the 22nd May, 1957. He gave an award under Section 11 of the Act on the 20th October, 1958. There was some dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation money between the petitioner and others, and hence a reference was made under Section 30 of the Act on the 20th July, 1959. On the same date, the compensation fixed by the award under Section 11 was deposited in Court. On an application filed by some interested persons but not the petitioner, the Collector, by his order dated the 23rd December, 1959, in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 31 of 1959-60, held that the awardees were entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act. It appears that interest has not been paid to the petitioner or the other interested persons.
On the 7th October, 1961, the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd Additional District Judge of Patna, who had disposed of the reference under Section 30, praying that the Court should order the Collector to deposit the amount of interest. The 2nd Additional District Judge has rejected this prayer. Hence, the petitioner has come up to this Court.
2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the Court has, on a reference under Section 30 of the Act, power to order the Collector to pay or deposit the amount of interest payable under Section 34 of the Act. It is necessary to consider the provisions of the Act and some decisions, which have been cited at the Bar, in order to arrive at a correct answer to this question.
3. Any person interested in land which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and who has not accepted the award, may file an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Court. By this application, he may require the Collector to refer for determination of the Court any objection which he raises to "the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested".
Among the particulars which the Collector has to furnish to the Court in making a reference under Section 18 is the particular which he has to furnish under Section 19(1) (c), viz., "the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under Sections 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under Section 11."
There is no provision to show that the Collector has also to give information to the Court relating to the interest payable to the awardees or awardees under Section 34.
4. Under Section 20, the Court has to determine the objection, and, before doing so, it has to give notice to different persons, including all persons interested in the objection.
5. Section 21 provides that the scope of the enquiry in the proceeding before the Court "shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests f the persons affected by the objection".
6. Section 30 does not provide for an application by an interested party to the Collector; it gives power to the Collector himself to make a reference to the Court "if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the "compensation" or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable."
It is manifest that the Collector can make a reference under the section without any application by any party; but the reference must be confined to one of the two points mentioned in the words which I have referred to.
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 provides that the Collector shall tender and make payment to different persons as mentioned in that section. Sub-section (2) of the same section provides that, in certain circumstances, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference is made under Section 18.
8. On a consideration of sections 18, 20 and 21, it is clear in my judgment that the Court, on a reference under Section 18, cannot go beyond the objection and decide a question which has not been raised therein. This has also been clearly laid down in Abu Bakar v. Peary Monan, ILK 34 Cal 451 which has been followed in Gobinda Kumar v. Debendra Kumar, 12 Cal WN 98.
9. On a reference under Section 30 also, it is obvious that the Court cannot determine a question which has not been referred to it. This has been laid down in Prabal Chandra v. Peary Mohun, 12 Cal WN 987, There is- no discussion in that case as to the distinction between a reference under Section 18 and one under Section 30; but the entire question has been discussed in 'Sm. Indumat! Debi v. Tulsi Thakurani, AIR 1942 Cal 53. As their Lordships have laid down in that case, the only reasonable construction from the words used in Section 30 is that the Court must confine itself to a consideration of the point which the Collector refers to it for determination.
10. Mr. Ali Ahmad, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has referred to the decision in Ramhit Sahu v. Mahadeo Choudhury, AIR 1920 Pat 222(2). In that case, the Collector paid to the tenants the amount ascertained as compensation for trees standing upon the acquired [and. On an application filed by the landlords, he made a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge. The District Judge held that the landlords were entitled to receive the compensation which had been awarded for the trees. A Bench of this Court held that he was right. Their Lordships, however, adversely commented upon the act of the Collector in permitting the tenants to withdraw the amount of compensation fixed for the trees before the expiry of the period allowed by Section 18 tor making an application, requiring the Collector to make a reference to the Court. They also observed:
"The District Judge had also a right to demand the deposit of the money in Court when the reference was made and to insist upon its being done, and in our opinion he ought to have done so before disposing of the reference so that the money could be ready for payment forthwith in pursuance of the decree made by him."
Mr. Ali Ahmad has relied upon the sentence which I have quoted, and has argued that the District Judge has the power to require the Collector to deposit compensation. His submission is that interest payable under Section 34 is included within the term 'compensation. In my judgment, there is no substance in this argument. As I nave pointed out, there is no provision in the Act which requires the Collector to give information to the Court on a reference under Section 18 or 30 as to the amount of interest payable under Section 34. That section itself lays down that, in certain circumstances, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded as compensation with interest thereon at a certain rate from the time that he took the land in possession until the payment or deposit of the compensation. This shows that the interest is payable separately and in addition to the compensation. If the two sub-sections of Section 31, which I have referred to, are read together, it is clear that what has to be tendered by the Collector or deposited by him in Court is the amount of compensation fixed by the award under Section 11. If the Collector does not comply, the Court can insist upon his making the deposit. This is what their Lordships mean by making the observation in Ramhit Sahu's case, AIR 1920 Pat 222(2) which I have quoted. I do not think that the observation can be construed to mean that the Court can demand from the Collector a deposit of any amount in excess of the compensation fixed in the award under Section 11.
11. It is true that the petitioner is entitled under Section 34 to the payment of interest in the circumsances and for the period mentioned in that section; but it seems to me that the learned 2nd Additional District Judge was right in holding that he had no power to direct the Collector to deposit in Court the amount of interest payable under that section. The application, therefore, fails, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.