SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1377

1996(7) Supreme 638
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy
Temple Singirigudi -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12001 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16429 of 1996)
Decided on 2-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Prabhakar, G. Sai Kumar and S. Rajappa, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Swami, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
In any dispute as to the person entitled to receive the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has to make a reference to the Court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to decide the inter se title.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 30-Dispute as to the person entitled to receive the compensation-Land Acquisition Officer has to make a reference to the Court to decide the inter se title-Approach of High Court declaring title of petitioner in writ petition is unsustainable. (Para 2)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. On the admitted facts, the approach of both the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench in the writ petition and the W.A. No. 1358/95 indicated in the impugned order made on January 30,1996 cannot be sustained. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on June 4, 1987 acquiring the land in question for the public purpose. After compliance of the notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, and enquiring the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on February 7,1990. The possession thereafter was taken on October 30, 1990. The question, therefore, would be; what would be the proper procedure to be adopted, in case of dispute as to the title of the land acquired under the Act? The learned single Judge declared titled to the petitioner in the writ petition and the Division Bench directed civil Court to decide the title. Both views are obviously erroneous in law. The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to compensation and the compensation to be determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dispute as to the person entitled to receive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under Section 31 of the Act into the court to which reference would lie. On such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute between the competing persons who set up rival title to the compensation. Under those circumstances, the only legal course open is that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 30 to decide the inter se title to receive the compensation either by the appellant or by the 4th respondent, as the case may be and the reference Court would decide the matter in accordance with law.

3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench stand set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference to the Court under Section 30. We are informed that the compensation has already been deposited in interest earning security. Therefore, if the parties so require, the reference Court may be approached in this behalf or the order of the learned single Judge may continue in force till the reference is decided in accordance with law. The latter would be the appropriate course. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top