Bombay High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer (1) vs Anil Krishna Biswas And Anr. on 9 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(3)BOMCR46, (1992)94BOMLR362
JUDGMENT S.M. Dadu, J.
1. This is a reference under section 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the instance of Claimant No. 1 hereinafter referred to as "Anil Biswas"- the authority pitted against him being the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay-hereinafter referred to as the "BMC".
2. Plot No. 34 out of Worli Estate Scheme No. 52 belonged to the BMC and Anil Biswas had moved an application on 26-11-1946 to take the said plot on lease for 999 years. Anil Biswas made a deposit of about Rs. 8,900/- which included Rs. 300/- towards stamp duty and registration charges etc. He also sent the draft of an agreement reciting the terms of lease. In the meantime, the State intimated a desire to compulsorily acquire the land. In response to the notices issued by the SLAO, Anil Biswas and the BMC put in their respective claims. The SLAO held that the total amount of compensation payable came to Rs. 2,29,425/- and that this sum was to be apportioned in the following manner :-
Anil Biswas - Rs. 1,31,100.00 BMC - Rs. 71,250.00 In regard to the sum capitalised on account of the ground rent there was a difference between the two claimants, and, in terms of money that represented an amount of Rs. 27,075.00. Therefore, the SLAO made a reference under section 30 vis-a-vis the sum of Rs. 27,075.00. Anil Biswas took exception to the quantum determined as payable unto him. Statements of claims put forth by the parties now need to be summarised. Anil Biswas contends that the sum determined as compensation by the SLAO is not proper. Next, he contends that the sum of Rs. 27,075/- should be awarded entirely to him. The BMC on the other hand says that Anil Biswas is not entitled to any part of the amount awarded as compensation. Apart from laying a claim to the sum of Rs. 27,075/- and interest thereon, the BMC wants a direction to Anil Biswas to make over the sum of Rs. 1,31,100/- together with interest at rate 12% per annum the principal amount having been taken away by Anil Biswas. In the claim statement of the BMC has claimed this amount from the SLAO in the event Anil Biswas is not found liable to make the refund. These contentions have given rise to the issues enumerated below with my findings recorded against each of them :-
ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Does the claimant BMC prove that possession of the acquired land was not delivered to the claimant No. 1? 'Yes' 2. Whether claimant No. 1 has acquired title to the acquired land? 'No' 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the SLAO is inadequate? 'Not so' 4. What enhanced compensation, solatium and interest - if any - payable for the acquired land? 'Nil' 5. Relief and costs? 'See order.'
3. At the inception it may be here made clear that the BMC has withdrawn the sum of Rs. 27,075/- on the strength of an order passed by S.K. Desai, J., on August 18, 1983. That withdrawal made by the BMC is entirely proper having regard to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal of Greater Bombay v. Ramadevi Shrinivas Ruia and another, . The contest between the parties is now restricted to the sum of Rs. 1,31,100/-. This sum has been taken away by Anil Biswas from the SLAO. Having regard to the decision in Ramadevi's case (supra) there is no gain saying the fact that Anil Biswas had not acquired any title to the acquired land and was not entitled to any compensation therefore. Mr. Dalal therefore, contends that this Court is under an obligation to give a direction that Anil Biswas do make over the sum realised by him together with proper interest thereon from the date of withdrawal until such date on which he will be refunding the whole amount. In support of this contention Counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in (XX Calcutta Weekly Notes 816). In that case the contestants were a person claiming title to the land as a lakheraj, whereas the rivals were a patnidar and dar-patnidar. The Collector made an award in favour of the lakheraj and the amount of compensation was actually paid to him. Upon a reference to the Civil Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Subordinate Judge found in favour of the patnidar and dar-patnidar. The Government was directed to pay compensation to them and to realise the amount previously paid to lakheraj from the said lakheraj. In appeal, the Division Bench held that though in the event of a dispute as to apportionment, the reference to the Civil Court under section 30 should be made before any payment has been made, still there was nothing in the Act prohibiting the Land Acquisition Collector from making the reference after payment of compensation to one of the parties. Upon such a reference, the Court had the jurisdiction to give a direction that the party which had wrongly received the amount should refund the amount to which it was not entitled and direct the payment of the amount to the party entitled to receive the same. There is no denying the applicability of this decision to support Mr. Dalal's contention. However, it seems to be at variance with the language used in section 30 of the Act. A reference under section 30 has to be made in the event of a dispute which relates to the apportionments of the compensation or any part thereof as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. In the present case, the award to the SLAO itself shows the dispute to be restricted to the sum of Rs. 27,075/-. Mr. Dalal argues that this would be a mis-reading of the reference for what was really in issue under the reference was the claim set up by the rivals viz. Anil Biswas and the BMC to receive the compensation for the acquisition of the land. It did not make any difference that before the SLAO the item singled out for a reference was the sum of Rs. 27,075/- only Even in relation to this small sum, the basic question was about the title of either the BMC or Anil Biswas to the land. A reading of the award and the order of reference does not support the stand taken by learned Counsel. The last paragraph of the application makes it clear that the reference is under section 18 as also under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In para 7 the dispute in regard to apportionment is specifically confined to the sum of Rs. 27,075/-. This amount represents the capitalised value of the ground rent. It will not therefore, be permissible to enlarge the scope of the reference to an item not covered by the application. A somewhat similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Deo Sanstha Chinchwad v. Chintaman Dharamdas Deo, . In that case also what fell for consideration was the scope of the Third Proviso to section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The question posed was answered in these words :-
"Mr. Chitale contends that in these circumstances in view of the third proviso to section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the suit filed by the plaintiffs would be maintainable. In our judgment, there is considerable force in this argument. Under the third proviso to section 31(2) of the Act, nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall effect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under the Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Unless, therefore, the claim of such a person, who is lawfully entitled to a share in the compensation money, is already adjudicated upon under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or such person having had notice of such proceedings, appears therein and fails to assert and prosecute his claim to a share in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he would be entitled to file a suit to recover his share from the person who may have received the whole or any part of the compensation amount awarded under the Act."
Though indirect, these observations are an authority for the proposition that the third Proviso can be availed of by the BMC in a suit to work out its rights whether against the SLAO or Anil Biswas.
4. Anil Biswas has also challenged the quantum at which the compensation has been determined. However no evidence has been led to establish that the compensation found payable by the SLAO is inadequate. The issues are answered in conformity with these findings and hence the order.
ORDER The sum of Rs. 27,075/- was payable to the BMC and its having withdrawn the same is held to be in conformity with law. Anil Biswas's claim to enhancement of the compensation as also the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 27,075/- is hereby negatived. Having regard to the difficult questions that arose for determination, parties are left to bear their own costs.