Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1965 Supreme(SC) 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND R..S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Dr. G. H. Grant (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (In All the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 262 to 264 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. R. Ghosal and R. S. Prasad, Advocates, for Appellant (In all the Appeals); M/s. D. P. Singh, R.K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and M.K. Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Respondent (In All the Appeals).

Advocates:
D.P.Singh, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.C.Prasad, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.R.GHOSH

The Collector has the power to refer a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, even after he has made an award apportioning the compensation under S. 11.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - S. 30 - REFERENCE TO COURT - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - COLLECTOR'S POWER TO REFER DISPUTE - AWARD - FINALITY - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - SOURCE - STATE'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - DEVOLUTION OF TITLE - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:

The Collector made awards apportioning compensation among the persons interested in the land acquired. The State Government, after the vesting of the land in it under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, claimed that the compensation money had become payable to it and applied for a reference to the Court under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Collector has the power to refer a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, even after he has made an award apportioning the compensation under S. 11. The award of the Collector is not the source of the right to compensation; it quantifies the offer of the appropriate Government, which is made because the Government has taken over, or intends to take the land of the owner under the authority conferred by the Land Acquisition Act. The right of the State to compensation arose when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 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 and 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.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector can refer a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, even after he has made an award apportioning the compensation under S. 11? 2. Whether the award of the Collector is the source of the right to compensation? 3. Whether the State's right to compensation arose when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to refer a dispute under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is distinct from the power to refer a dispute under S. 18(1) of the Act. The Collector may exercise the power under S. 30 even after he has made an award apportioning the compensation under S. 11. 2. The award of the Collector is not the source of the right to compensation; it quantifies the offer of the appropriate Government, which is made because the Government has taken over, or intends to take the land of the owner under the authority conferred by the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The State's right to compensation arose when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO, J.: I regret my inability to agree with brother Shah, J, on one of the questions raised in the appeals, namely whether the Land Acquisition Officer can, after making the award under S. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, fixing the compensation for the land acquired and apportioning the same among the persons interested in the land, refer the question of appointment under S. 30 of the Act to the decision of the Court. Shah, J., held he could; but with great respect to him, I take a different view.

2. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of Shah, J., and they need not, therefore, by restated here.

3. The answer to the problem raised falls to be decided on a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 9 of the Act enjoins on the Collector to cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him: under Sub-s. (2) thereof such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections, if any, to the measurements made under S. 8. Under S. 11, on the day fixed or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to make an enquiry and shall make an award under his hand of (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he had information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. Under S. 12,

"such award shall be filed in the Collector s office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested."

The group of sections, viz., Ss. 9 to 15, describes the subject-matter and the nature of the enquiry to be held by the Collector and provides for the making of the final award in respect of the said subject-matter; Ss. 18 to 28 provide for reference to Court and the procedure to be followed therein in respect thereof. Sections 29 and 30 fall under Part IV of the Act under the heading "Apportionment of compensation",. As decision mainly turns upon these provisions, it will be convenient to read them in full.

Section 29. Particulars of apportionment to be specified.-

Where there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.

Section 30. Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.

While S. 11 imposes a statutory duty on the Collector to enquire in respect of the three matters mentioned therein. Ss. 29 and 30 deal with the manner of deciding the dispute in respect of one of the said matters, viz., apportionment of the compensation fixed; under S. 29, if the claimants agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the agreed particulars shall be specified in the award and the said award is final as b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document