Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. This application was opposed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was submitted that since the respondent No.3 had not filed application for reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894 and no challenge was raised to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, such transposition of the respondent No.3 as appellant in the present appeal could not be permitted. It was emphasized that by not preferring application under section 18 of the Act of 1894, the respondent No.3 had accepted the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, there was no question of permitting of such transposition. In the alternative, it was submitted that if the application was to be allowed, the respondent No.3 upon being transposed, ought not to be granted interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer till the application for transposition being allowed.

8. As noted above, it was submitted by Mr.M.A.Kadu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Smt. A.R.Kulkarni learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 that the KHUNTE caf3217.19.odt application for transposition was not maintainable, particularly in the absence of the respondent No.3 filing an application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 before the Reference Court. It was reiterated that in any case, the respondent No.3 would not be entitled to grant of interest for the period between the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the transposition application being allowed by this Court, if at all.

16. Although a specific objection was raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that failure to file application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 by the respondent No.3 was fatal for consideration of such a prayer for transposition, applying the said position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case it would become clear that as long as the respondent No.3 was a party before the Reference Court as non-applicant No.3, the remedy for transposition could certainly be considered. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the respondent No.3, who was non-applicant No.3 before the Reference Court, had accepted the award, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts of the present case, because the compromise document placed at Exhibit-20 before the Reference Court clearly states that the respondent No.3 and the appellant had agreed that the consolidated cheque towards compensation for the entire acquired land of 1.63 HR was to be accepted by the appellant and that the parties were to cooperate with each other for further action to be taken in that regard. It is a matter of record that the consolidated cheque was disbursed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the appellant, which constituted the quantum of compensation to the entire 1.63 HR land, KHUNTE caf3217.19.odt which included 0.20 HR land belonging to the respondent No.3. The said cheque was accepted under protest by the appellant, obviously not only on his behalf, but also on behalf of his uncle, respondent No.3 and in terms of the compromise entered into between them, the reference application was preferred before the Reference Court, wherein the respondent No.3 was arrayed as non-applicant No.3. In view of the said peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the application for transposition could not be considered by this Court only because a separate application under section 18 of hte Act of 1894, was not preferred by the respondent No.3 before the Reference Court.

18. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to file a reference application in the present case should result in depriving the respondent No.3 from interest on enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer to the date when the application for transposition is allowed, it is found that when the application for transposition deserves to be allowed on the basis of the position of law and proper interpretation of provisions of various Acts and the Civil Procedure Code, there is no reason to deprive the respondent No.3, now represented through legal representatives, from interest on the enhanced compensation. Once the application for transposition is allowed, there cannot be any such condition, because the concept of limitation is not applicable to such an application for transposition and it cannot be treated as if the respondent No.3 was guilty of delay, to deprive him of all benefits of enhanced compensation including grant of interest. This is particularly so because the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was disbursed in a conslidated manner by a single cheque to the KHUNTE caf3217.19.odt appellant, who received it for and on behalf of himself and the respondent No.3 under protest. Consequently, further enhancement of such quantum of compensation with all benefits could not be denied to respondent No.3 even after it is found that the application for transposition deserves to be allowed.