IMPORTANT POINT
The person who had notice of the acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, is debarred from filing a Reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be allowed to apply for a reference under Section 30 of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 18 and 30-Scope of-Reference-Dispute as to apportionment of compensation-Person who had notice of acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of Section 50, is debarred from filing a reference under Section 18 cannot be allowed to apply for a Reference under Section 30 of the Act.
       Held : Persons who have notice of acquisition proceedings would have to apply for a Reference under Section 18. To be noted that under Section 18 Reference could be in respect of the measurement of the land and/or the amount of compensation and/or in respect of persons to whom it is payable and/or for apportionment of compensation amongst persons interested. Section 30 merely deals with apportionment of compensation when the amount of compensation has been settled. Thus, as set out in the above mentioned cases, Section 18 is to be invoked when a person claiming a pre-existing right has notice of the acquisition proceedings, whereas Section 30 comes into play only if a person had no notice of the acquisition proceedings or the rights came into existence after the acquisition proceedings. It is clear that the person who had notice of the acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of Section 50, is debarred from filing a Reference under Section 18 cannot be allowed to apply for a Reference under Section 30. In this case, this Court has already held that the Respondents were not entitled to apply for a Reference under Section 18. This meant that they were not entitled to seek a Reference not just in respect of the compensation but also for apportionment of the compensation. Once it has been held that they had no right to move under Section 18 there was no question of their being permitted to move under Section 30. To permit a party, who cannot apply under Section 18, to apply under Section 30 would be to render Section 50 nugatory. (Para 21)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6, 18 and 30-Claim for apportionment of compensation-One JC were granted a lease in perpetuity by the Municipal Authority of Bombay in year 1932-On 11-1-1938, property was taken over by the Defence Department for war purposes-In 1980 a notice to quit was given to the Defence Department-Writ petition filed for directions that the property be acquired or possession be handed back-Death of lessee-Acquisition of land-Government invoked urgency clause u/s 17 of the Act-Compensation fixed at Rs. 9,20,51,175/- -Appellants, legal representatives of lessees applied that compensation be paid to them-High Court directed Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount in Court-Union of India files an application before Land Acquisition Officer for apportionment of their share u/s 30 of the Act-Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference-Whether High Court was justified in setting aside order of Special Land Acquisition Officer-(No)-In land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest-Interest which is acquired in land acquisition proceedings are interest of 3rd parties.
       Held : In our view, the High Court has clearly erred in setting aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference. It is settled law that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest. The interest which is acquired in land acquisition proceedings are interest of 3rd parties. (Para 15)
       In this case the Government had given a lease of the land. That land was then acquired. This Court recognized the principle that the Government is not enjoined to acquire its own interest in the land. This Court held that however where the Collector determined the compensation without taking into consideration that the private party is only entitled to leasehold interest, then the compensation would have to be apportioned between the Government and the private party. There can be no dispute with this preposition. In the present case it is to be seen that the land belonged to the Municipality of Bombay. In the Award the Collector has apportioned the compensation between the Municipality and the Appellants herein. Therefore, this authority can be of no assistance to the Respondents who are not claiming the land as owners. They are now claiming on the basis that they are protected tenants under the Bombay Rent Act and that as such tenants they are entitled to share in the compensation. As is being pointed out later no such claim was made before the Collector and it cannot be made at this stage. (Para 16)
       Of course if the Respondents had a right as tenants they would be entitled to share in the compensation. However such a claim, if any, was in respect of a pre-existing right and should have been made before the Land Acquisition Officer in the land acquisition proceedings. From the Award it is clear that the Respondents were represented before the Land Acquisition Officer. They had been given notice. No claim of tenancy had been made before the Land Acquisition Officer. (Para 18)
       It must be remembered that the possession had been taken during the war for defence purposes and that the notice to quit had been given in 1980. Therefore, if any claim to tenancy was to be made it had to be specifically raised and then only it could have been determined. If a party is present and makes no claim the Special Land Acquisition Officer is under no duty to make an enquiry. Once a party is represented and makes no claim it would be a reasonable inference that it is claiming no rights. It is clear that the claim of tenancy, now put forth, is an afterthought. Having failed in all their efforts to frustrate payment, through the gamut of litigations set out hereinabove, now this attempt. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-These Appeals are against a Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 6th July, 1998.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

One Jerbano Cursetji and Dr. K.J. Cursetji were granted a lease in perpetuity by the Municipal Authority of Bombay in the year 1932. On 11th January, 1938 the property was taken over by the Defence Department for war purposes. The Defence Department paid a sum of Rs. 1,903/- per annum and such payments have been made till 1994. In 1980 a notice to quit out was given to the Defence Department. Thereafter in 1982 a Writ Petition No. 919/1982 was filed for directions that the property be acquired or the possession be handed back. In that Writ Petition a statement was made, on the basis of the written instructions received from the Union of India, that the land would be acquired. On this statement the Writ Petition was withdrawn.

3. The land was still not acquired. Therefore on 8th June, 1994 Jerbano Cursetji filed Writ Petition No. 1733/1994 for directions that in compliance with the statement made earlier the land be acquired or the possession be handed back. After this Writ Petition was filed, on 3rd November, 1994, Jerbano Cursetji died. It must be mentioned that her husband Dr. K.J. Cursetji had died earlier to the filing of the Writ Petition.

4. The Government now invoked urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and a Notification under Section 4 was published on 31st December, 1994. Section 6 Notification was published on 23rd February, 1995 and an Award came to be passed on 30th May, 1995. In that Award the compensation was fixed at Rs. 9,20,51,175/-. The Appellants, who were the Legal Representatives of Mrs. Jerbano Cursetji and Dr. K.J. Cursetji, applied that the amount of compensation be paid to them. Since there was no response they filed Notice of Motion bearing No. 156/1996 in pending Writ Petition No. 1733/94 that the amount be paid to them. On 24th June, 1996 the High Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount in Court.

5. On 24th July, 1996 the Union of India filed Writ Petition No. 1603/1996 challenging the Award as excessive. Union of India took out the Notice of Motion No. 279/96 for extension of time to deposit the amount. On 30th August, 1996 the Writ Petition taken out by the Union of India was rejected. However Union of India was granted time till 1st October, 1996 to deposit the amount.

6. The Union of India now files a S.L.P., in this Court, against the Order dated 24th June 1996. On 2nd September, 1996 the S.L.P. was dismissed with the following observation:

".........The Award of the Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and, therefore, under law, the State cannot question the correctness of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State is bound by the same. Under these circumstances, they cannot impeach the award of the Collector as being excessive of the prevailing market value as on the date of the notification. There is no law applicable to the Petitioners that they are entitled to seek any reference under Section 18 as regards the rate of compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. Only in the State of U.P. by a local amendment, such a right to the State to seek reference under Section 18(3) was conferred upon the Commissioner. No such similar law is existing under Act 1 of 1874."

"......,, it would be open to them to agitate the remedy in that behalf in an appeal filed against that order in the Writ Petition or in any appropriate proceedings arising thereunder, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."

7. The Union of India again applied to the High Court for extension of time. The High Court by its Order dated 1st October, 1996 refused to extend the time.

8. Union of India now files an S.L.P. against Order dated 30th August 1996. This S.L.P. also came to be rejected by this Court, but time to make depos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 610

IMPORTANT POINTThe person who had notice of the acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, is debarred from filing a Reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be allowed to apply for a reference under Section 30 of the Act.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The person who had notice of the acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, is debarred from filing a Reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be allowed to apply for a reference under Section 30 of the Act.