When there is a dispute as to title to acquired land, the Collector must deposit the compensation amount in court under section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and cannot make a direct payment to one party under section 31(1).

JUDGMENT-This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned joint District judge, Nasik, dated August 22, 1969, in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land under acquisition comprises 6f the whole of S. No. 65 of Khayade village admeasuring 16 acres and 33 gunthas, and Pot-kharaba 1 acre and 34 gunthas, aggregating to 18 acres and 27 gunthas. According to the revenue records, the western part of that survey number was sub-divided into Hissa No.1 admeasuring 9 acres and 2 gunthas, which together with Pot-Kharaba 1 acre 7 gunthas, totalled to 10 acres and 9 gunthas; and the eastern part thereof was sub-divided into Hissa No.2 admeasuring 7 acres and 31 gunthas, and Pot-kharaba 27 gunthas, admeasured in all 8 acres and 18 gunthas. It was the case of respondent No.1 in this appeal that the whole of the land comprised in Hissa No.1 of the said S. No. 65 belonged to him and was in his possession till the date of acquisition and he was entitled to compensation in respect thereof. In the course of the land acquisition proceedings, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 (Bhogilal) was found to be in possession only of 5 acres and 37 gunthas of the land in Hissa No.1 of S. No. 65 which, together with Pot-kharaba of 1 guntha, aggregated only to 5 acres and 38 gunthas, and that all the rest of the land in Hissa No.1, as well as the entire land comprised in Hissa No.2 of S. No. 65, was in possession of respondent No.2 (Nathu Lala) and compensation was awarded by him on that footing. The amount of compensation which was determined by the award to be payable to Nathu Lala was paid to him by the Government. At the instance of Bhogilal, a Reference was made to the District Court of Nasik under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the said Bhogilal claimed compensation in respect of the remaining portion of Hissa No.1 of S. No. 65 consisting of 3 acres and 5 gunthas of land, which together with Pot-kharaba 1 acre and 6 gunthas, aggregated to 4 acres and 11 gunthas. The said Bhogilal also claimed a higher amount by way of market value of the said land, but that claim was given up by him at the hearing of the Reference. The dispute which was raised in the said Reference was, therefore, not a dispute in regard to the apportionment of compensation in respect of the same piece of land, but was a dispute in regard to the title to the said 4 acres and 11 guntbas which were part of Hissa No.1 of S. No. 65. The lower Court framed two issues: (1) Whether Bhogilal had proved his title to the said 4 acres 11 gunthas of land j and (2) whether Nathu Lala had proved that he had acquired title to the said 4 acres 11 gunthas of1and by adverse possession. The learned Judge in the lower Court came to the conclusion that Bhogilal had proved his title to the said 4 acres 11 gunthas being part of Hissa No.1 of S. No. 65, and he also came to the conclusion that Nathu Lata had failed to prove that he had acquired title by adverse possession to the same. The lower Court, therefore, held Bhogilal entitled to compensation for the disputed land admeasuring 4 acres 11 gunthas, the amount of such compensation being Rs, 2,388.80 and took the view that the mere fact that compensation in respect of the said 4 acres 11 gunthas had already been paid to the said Nathu Lala by the Government did not absolve the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Government from paying the amount of that compensation to Bhogilal who was entitled to the same. The learned Judge, therefore, ordered that both the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the said Nathu Lala "do _ pay to the claimant Bhogilal Lalchand Rs. 2,388.80," and the costs of the proceedings before him, on or before the date fixed by him. The State has come in appeal from that order on the ground that the lower Court erred in directing that the Special Land Acquiition Officer should pay the amount in question to the claimant, and has sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document