Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During the course of the arguments it was suggested that as the interest of Dr. Grant devolved on the Government it may be held that the Government was in substance brought on record in the place of Dr. Grant in the reference made under s. 18 of the Act to the District Court. But the point was not raised at any stage of the proceedings. Indeed no application was filed in the District Court for bringing the Government on record in the place of Dr. Grant. In the circumstances I am not justified' in permitting the respondent to raise the said point for the first time before this Court.

The right of the State of Bihar arose on May 22, 1952 when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which prohibits the Collector from making a reference under s. 30 for determination of the title of the person who has since the date of the award acquired a right to the compensation. If after a reference is made to the Court, the person interested dies or his title devolves upon another person, because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture, compulsory winding up or other form of statutory transfer, it would be open to the party upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom the title has devolved could have prosecuted. In Promotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Addy(2) it was held that a reference made by the Collector under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of a proprietor of land may be prosecuted by the purchaser of his rights after the award at a revenue auction. If the right to prosecute a reference by a person on whom the title of the person interested has devolved be granted, there is no reason why the right to claim a reference of a dispute about the person entitled to compensation may not be exercised by the person on whom the title has devolved since the date of the award. 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 is not restricted (1)A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1763.

(2) 11 Cal. L.J. 420.

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 s. 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.

It was strongly pressed that under s. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled' thereto according to the award and that implied that a right in the amount of compensation arises to the person to whom compensation is directed to be paid under the award, and therefore the only persons who can raise a dispute under s. 30 are those whose names are set out in the award. This contention stands refuted by the plain terms of s. 30. The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, to apportion the amount of compensation between 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. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under s. 18 or under s. 30 or in a separate suit. Payment of compensation therefore under s. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of its liability to pay compensation (subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under s. 30 or by a separate suit.

The dispute between the State of Bihar and Dr. Grant has been expressly referred by the Collector to the Court for decision. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of Dr. Grant to the Land notified for acquisition became vested' in the State, and there fore the right to compensation for the land acquired devolved upon the State. A dispute between Dr. Grant and the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which could be referred under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court and was in fact referred to the Court. We are unable to agree with counsel for Dr. Grant that the reference made by the Collector under s. 30 was incompetent, because the State was not interested in the compensation money on the date when the award was made. The right of the State of Bihar has undoubtedly arisen after the award was made, but once the title which was originally vested in Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred to the State, it was open to the State to claim a reference, not because the State was a person interested' in the compensation money before the date of the award, but because of the right which has arisen since the award was made.