Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 640
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.BALIA, R.M.Doshit
GOSWAMI SHRI VITHALNATHJI VRAJBHUSHANLALJI MAHARAJ - Appellant
Versus
ARUNABETIJI PURSHOTTAMLALJI MAHARAJA - Respondent
C.A. 7143 of 1998
Decided On : 11/22/1999
Headnote:
Land Acquisition and Requisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3 (b), 18, 20 and 30 – Compensation – Determination of – Person interested – Appeal against the order of award made by Second Joint District Judge on a reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Reference Case – Special Land Acquisition Officer being in confused state of mind in determining as to whom the compensation for acquisition of land be awarded in respect of property which is admittedly of public trust – Before making reference Land Acquisition officer tried to seek guidance from Joint Charity Commissioner to determine question of person interested to whom compensated to be granted as the property was a trust property – Appellant says that a person who claims to be interested in land or compensation or a person entitled to receive compensation has a right to be heard in the matter right from the beginning and the fact that at the initial stage he was not made party or could not be made part of the proceedings cannot come in his way for joining at any stage of the proceedings subject to the relevant considerations but there cannot be absolute non consideration of such request merely because it is a case arising out of a reference under Section 18 or 30 of Act a person who is not before Collector cannot also be considered to be person required to be heard by the court – Who can be said to be a person interested – Held, expression `person interested is not confined to a person having interest in land. A person claiming interest in compensation, irrespective of his interest in land, too for the purposes of proceeding under the Act, is a person interested – Even without any such declaration when the amount of compensation is directed to be paid to respondent No. 2 as a trustee of the trust in question, these obligations are inherent into it which as a trustee he must adhere to and to safeguard the compensation amount, learned District Judge has required of the respondent No. 2 to seek prior permission of the Charity Commissioner before making use of the corpus, any person who lays a claim to the trust property only as trustee, but who is not presently in management of trust properties and his rights are yet to be determined by appropriate authority or the civil court, cannot claim to be a person in presenti interested in question to whom the compensation is to be paid, when no other issue is raised about compensation itself, nor any question as to apportionment is involved, nor can he be treated as person aggrieved – Land Acquisition Officer or in that matter reference court is not authority who decides this issue – All other questions applicant wants to raise in this application fall beyond scope of these proceedings – Court in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 30 of Act rightly ordered to whom compensation is to be paid on its finding that property acquired is a trust property and amount has to be paid to any one only as trustee of trust and not in his individual capacity and that compensation be so paid to respondent No. 2 – Appeal is dismissed. (Paras 24 to 26)
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This Civil Application is by one Goswamy Shri Vithalnathji Vrajbhushanlalji Maharaj seeking leave to appeal seeking leave to appeal against the order of award made by Second Joint District Judge Junagadh on 24-3-1995 on a reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad in Land Reference Case No. 85 of 1992.
( 2 ) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer being in confused state of mind in determining as to whom the compensation for acquisition of land be awarded in respect of the property of Vishnav Haveli called Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli, at Junagadh which is admittedly of a public trust. Before making reference the Land Acquisition officer tried to seek guidance from Joint Charity Commissioner to determine the question of person interested to whom compensated to be granted as the property was a trust property. In reference two persons were arrayed as parties (1) Arunabetiji Purshottamlalji Maharaja and (2) Goswami Kishorchandraji Purushottamlalji. Arunabetiji is the daughter of Shri Purshottamlalji Maharaja (Purshottamlaji for the present purposes is called as original trustee of the trust in question) and Goswamiji Kishorchandra claimed himself to be the adopted son of Purshottamlalji adopted to Purshottamlaji by his widow Chandraprabha Bahuji Maharaj. That reference has been decided by the order under appeal dated 24-3-1998 by agreement between respondent No. 1 and 2 in which Arunabetiji accepted the claim of Gowswami Kishorechandraji Maharaj as a trustee of the property in question and permitted the amount of compensation to be paid to him as trustee. In these circumstances, the court directed the amount of compensation to be paid to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of trust Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli at Junagadh as trustee. Prior to this, it may be noticed that the amount of compensation was deposited in the fixed deposit scheme in Dena Bank, Junagadh and Indian Bank, Junagadh under the directions of this Court, the Second Joint District Judge gave further directions in consonance with the position of respondent No. 2 as trustee, to make a declaration on oath that the amount of dividend or interest which may be earned as aas a result of the above said investment would be utilised fully for the objects and purpose of the trust and respondent No. 2 shall keep proper accounts of the dividend or interest which the trust shall receive and which will be used for the purpose and objects of the trust. It was also directed that the said opponent No. 2 shall utilise the amount of principal only after taking necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner whenever so required.
( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents. It was urged that the present applicant was not at all a party in proceedings for determination of compensation which culminated in the award made by the Collector. In reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the scope is limited to the dispute referred under Section 30 and determination of applicants rights being not referred to it, is beyond the scope of reference made or that could be made under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore a person like the present applicant stranger to proceedings before the Collector cannot in any circumstance be heard in the matter referred to court. Consequently he also has no right to maintain this appeal as a person aggrieved or a person interested against the award made by the Court.
( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed in Manjur Ahmed v. Rajlakshmi Dassi AIR 1956 Cal 263, Basalingappa Gowda v. Nagamma AIR 1969 Mysore 313, Tejdhari v. Baul AIR 1981 All 47 and Govind Narayan Lotlikar v. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar AIR 1987 Bombay 32.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant - appellant says that a person who claims to be interested in land or compensation or a person entitled to receive compensation has a ri
