Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Dept vs Committee Gaushala Bhilwara & Ors on 30 January, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4445 / 2011
The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Committee Gaushala Bhilwara.
2. The Sarvajanik Sampati Trust, Bhilwara.
3. The Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara.
4. The State of Rajasthan through Land Acquisition Officer, UIT,
Bhilwara.
5. Land Acquiring Officer, Bhilwara.
6. The State of Rajasthan through Collector, Bilwara.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Shisodia.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 30/01/2017 The matter comes up on an application filed by the applicant-appellant seeking leave to file the appeal against the judgment dated 27.10.2010, passed by District Judge, Bhilwara, and on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal/application.
For the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal/application, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.
Heard on application filed by the applicant seeking leave to (2 of 3) [CMA-4445/2011] file the appeal.
It is, inter alia, submitted by counsel for the applicant that though the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the amount of award with the appellant pursuant to the award dated 26.8.1994, the appellant-Department apparently has no role to play in the same, however, a direction has been given by the reference court to make payment of the amount of compensation to respondents No.1 & 2 alongwith interest, therefore, the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reference court has passed order only in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') and there is no specific direction against the appellant-Devasthan Department to make payment of the amount of compensation alongwith interest and, therefore, the appellant cannot have any grievance qua the said impugned judgment and that even otherwise appellant could not keep the amount, which legally belonged to the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The trial court while considering the issue pertaining to the involvement of the appellant-Department, observed that at no stage the appellant-Department was party before the Land Acquisition Officer, however, while passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer by hand added the appellant-Department, which was contrary to the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act and, consequently passed the following direction:
(3 of 3) [CMA-4445/2011] "अतः अप्रारा ससंखख्रा-04 उक र्राशा मख देखबख्राज के आखकक देवसर्रान ववभ्राग, उदखपकर से प्राप कर उक र्राशा क्रा तर्रा ाेष मकआवज्रा र्राशा क्रा भकगत्रान प्रारागण कक अद्रा करे । अव्रार् इसस पक्रार मकताब ककख्रा ज्रावे।"
A bare look at the direction indicates that the respondent No.4 before the trial court i.e. State through Collector, Bhilwara, has been directed to make payment of the amount of compensation deposited with the Devasthan Department alongwith interest and make payment of the compensation in terms of its award.
The direction is in consonance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and there is no specific direction to recover the interest on the amount deposited with the appellant-Department and then pay it to the claimants-respondents, though the interest is payable in terms of the provisions of the Act.
In view thereof, as apparently there is no direction of the trial court to charge interest from the appellant-Department, there is no reason for the appellant-Department to question the legality and validity of the award impugned. No other ground has been raised and/or submitted against the award impugned.
In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the appellant seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit-2