Allahabad High Court
Omvir Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 28 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)AWC897, 2004 ALL. L. J. 1974, 2004 A I H C 3510, (2004) 2 LACC 533, (2004) 97 REVDEC 141, (2004) 55 ALL LR 280, (2004) 1 ALL WC 897, (2004) 2 ESC 703, 2004 ALL CJ 1 738, (2004) 16 ALLINDCAS 577 (ALL)
Author: V.M. Sahai
Bench: V.M. Sahai, Tarun Agarwala
JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The State of U.P. acquired land for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) by notification issued on 6.1.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act). The notification under Section 6 was issued on 22.9.1992 and possession was taken on 18.3.1994. Various objections of tenure holders were decided by a common award under Section 11 of the Act on 31.1.2001. While deciding the objection No. 24 filed by the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6, it was observed by the Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition), Noida (in brief the A.D.M.) that the objections were separately being heard and would be decided on merits and orders for payment of compensation would be passed. On 19.10.2001 on the basis of report of Tehsildar, Dadri, District Ghaziabad, the A.D.M. decided the objections and held that the petitioners and respondents No 3 to 6 are recorded in revenue records on half share each, therefore, he directed payment of half share of the compensation to the petitioners and the remaining half amount of compensation to be paid to respondents No. 3 to 6. It is this order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the A.D.M. that has been challenged in this writ petition. It has been claimed that a direction be issued to the A.D.M. to refer the dispute under Section 30 of the Act.
2. We have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal the learned counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, and Sri S.N. Singh the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 6.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the A.D.M. could only pronounce the award under Section 11 of the Act. It was not open to him to decide the title of the parties and the amount of compensation that was to be received by them. The petitioners had filed an application on 24.10.2001 for recalling the order dated 19.10.2001 and to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication of title and apportionment of the amount of compensation but no order had been passed on this application by the A.D.M. He urged that the A.D.M. was required to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 and Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 432. On the other hand, Sri S.N. Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 has urged that the proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (in brief the U.P.C.H. Act) had become final and share of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6 in the land in dispute had been decided to be half and half, therefore, the ADM was justified in apportioning the compensation amount. He urged that the consolidation proceedings with regard to respective shares of parties had become final under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and it cannot be reopened. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Ors., 1972 AWR 338. He further urged that since title of parties had been decided earlier during consolidation proceedings, therefore, the petitioners did not have any right to claim a reference under Section 30 of the Act. He placed reliance on Vishnu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1993 (1) AWC 515 : 1993 (1) ACJ 218. The learned standing counsel has supported the impugned order.
4. The dispute relates to land of Khata No. 74/77, Khasra Nos. 81, 82, 83 and 84 total area 4-5-10 bigha situate in village Hazipur, pargana and tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar on which the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6 were recorded. In their objection before the A.D.M. the petitioners relied on the decision dated 24.5.1959 in appeal No. 66 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the respondents No. 3 to 6 had only one-third share and the petitioners had two-third share in the acquired land. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 claimed in their objection before the ADM that the aforesaid decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.5.1959 had become final between the parties under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. It was further claimed that the share of Kishan Lal the real brother of Babu Ram who died issueless, devolved on Babu Ram, therefore, the share of petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6 would be half and half.
5. The parties had led evidence before the ADM. On consideration of evidence the ADM by his order dated 19.10.2001 rejected the objection of the petitioners and on the basis of revenue entries directed that compensation be paid half and half to the parties. The Apex Court in Dr. G. H. Grant (supra), held that the amount awarded under Section 11 of the Act is an offer that is made to a person whose land had been acquired to accept the compensation or not to accept it. He may make a claim for reference to the Court. It was held in paragraph 18 as under :
"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 if 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 Section 30 which excludes a reference to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of land has, since the award, devolved."
6. From the decisions in Dr. G. H. Grant and A.L.T. Singirigudi (supra), it is clear that it was not open to the A.D.M. to decide inter se title dispute between the parties to receive compensation. Since there was dispute about the title to the land acquired, the A.D.M. was required to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. In paragraph 19 of Dr. G.H. Grant (supra) the Apex Court held as under :
"The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation : that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 or in a separate suit."
7. From the facts of this case it is evident that the parties were claiming title to the land in different shares. They were pleading finality of Judgment dated 24.5.1959. The respondents No. 3 to 6 also pleaded bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. It was also to be considered that on whom the share of Kishan Lal devolved. These questions were required to be decided on merfts by the Court in reference either under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondents do not help him. In such a situation the Collector or the A.D.M. could only make a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Court to decide their inter se title and entitlement to receive the compensation. The Apex Court in Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni v. State of A. P., (2000) 9 SCC 371. had held that where there was a dispute regarding title and also apportionment of the compensation amount, a direction is liable to be issued to the A.D.M. to make a reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act.
8. Since the A.D.M. did not have power or jurisdiction to decide the inter-se title of the parties or to apportion the amount of compensation in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the A.D.M. cannot be maintained.
9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Noida is directed to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
10. Parties shall bear their own costs.