2003 Supreme(SC) 704

2003(1) Supreme 228
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Sharda Devi -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14198/1996
Decided on 8-1-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.K. Lal, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Gopal Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : B.B. Singh, Advocate (N.P.), Ashok Mathur, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts and circumstances of the case a reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not competent.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 3(b), 18 and 30-Meaning of expression "person interested"-Government or State is not a `person interested within the meaning of Section 18(1)-(See para 13)-Scheme of the Act and difference between reference under Section 18 and the one under Section 30-(See paras 24 and 25)-Dispute as to whether title of land vests in appellant, so as to entitle her to payment of compensation or whether the appellant s title had stood already extinguished in view of having vested in State was referred under Section 30 to the decision of the Court-Reference rejected by Special Sub-Judge Ranchi holding appellant to be an occupancy raiyat of the land in question and therefore award prepared in her name was just and legal-Upheld by Single Judge of High Court but DB of High Court reversed it holding that reference under Section 30 of the Act was maintainable at the instance of State of Bihar-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether DB was right? (No)-Appeal allowed with costs throughout.

       Held : The sole question which arises for decision in this appeal centers around the question referred to herein above, i.e., whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a reference u/s 30 of the Act was competent ? In other words, the core question is - when the State proceeds to acquire land on an assumption that it belongs to a particular person, can the award be called into question by the State seeking a reference u/s 30 of the Act on the premise that the land did not belong to the person from whom it was purportedly acquired and was a land owned by the State having vested in it, consequent upon abolition of proprietory rights, much before acquisition ? (Para 10)

       Held after detailed discussion : To sum up the State is not a person interested as defined in Section 3(2) of the Act. It is not a party to the proceedings before the Collector in the sense, which the expression parties to the litigation carries. The Collector holds the proceedings and makes an award as a representative of the State Government. Land or an interest in land pre-owned by State cannot be subject matter of acquisition by State the question of deciding the ownership of State or holding of any interest by the State Government in proceedings before the Collector cannot arise in proceedings before the Collector (as defined in Section 3(c) of the Act). If it was a government land there was no question of initiating the proceedings for acquisition at all. The Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it. A dispute as to pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is not a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. The reference made by the Collector to the Court was wholly without jurisdiction and the Civil Court ought to have refused to entertain the reference and ought to have rejected the same. All the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act beginning from the reference and adjudication thereon by the Civil Court suffer from lack of inherent jurisdiction and are therefore a nullity liable to be declared so. However, we would like to clarify our decision by sounding two notes of caution. Firstly, the quashing of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act would not debar the State from pursuing such other legal remedy before such other forum as may be available to the State Government and on the merits and the maintainability thereof we express no opinion herein. Secondly, the situation in law would have been entirely different if the title of the appellant would have come to an end by any event happening or change taking place after the making of the award by the Collector as was the case in Dr. G.H. Grant vs. State of Bihar - (1965) 3 SCR 576. The title of Dr. Ghosh had come to an end by change of law referable to a date subsequent to the making of the award. In this context it was held - "............ 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" 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". (Paras 36 and 37)

       Held consequently : For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge restored with costs throughout. (Para 38)