The Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a finalized award under the Land Acquisition Act; disputes on compensation apportionment must be determined by a Civil Court based on the parties' rights and interests.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. This petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein a dispute arose between the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Yusufali Amadbhai, the original owner and the respondent No.3 herein with respect to apportionment of compensation determined under the reference court award for the land in question, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act’ 1894”), has been adjudicated.

2. The further challenge is to the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer for apportionment of compensation under the original award, between the original owner namely Yusufali Amadbhai and the respondent No.3, namely Laljibhai Kanjibhai Sorathiya, who claimed to be administrator and through whom the original owner Yusufali Amadbhai was appearing in the land acquisition proceedings. The Further prayer is to declare that the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of original owner, namely Yusufali Amadbhai are entitled to the entire compensation amount awarded in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, vide judgment and order dated 28.12.1995 along with the statutory benefits of the Act’ 1894.

3. It seems that the entire compensation awarded under the reference Court award dated 28.12.1995 has been deposited under the order 05.09.2011 and is lying with the reference court as on date. It is admitted to the learned counsels for the parties that there is no disbursement of the amount determined under the reference court award dated 28.12.1995 till date.

4. The question before us is about the validity of the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein it is held that the entire awarded amount in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993 is to be paid as per the revised award dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector. The applications filed by the rival parties for payment of the awarded amount were rejected leaving it open for them to file fresh applications for the amount that was payable to them.

5. Challenging the order passed by the reference court, it was argued by Mr.P. M. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioners, that the Civil Court has committed a grave error of law in deciding the dispute relating to apportionment of compensation between two rival parties, solely based on the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Collector, wherein it has directed to apportion the compensation amount for the lands in question namely, Survey Nos. ‘47’ and ‘48’ (total area 62,431 sq.mts.) on the basis of an alleged compromise arrived between the original owner Yusufali Amad and respondent No.3, namely Lalji Kanji.

6. It is submitted that with the passing of the land acquisition award dated 06.02.1993, appended at page No. ‘62 / A’ of the paper-book (as Annexure ‘A’), the land acquisition officer / Deputy Collector became functus officio. The Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order for amendment of the award for apportionment of compensation between the original owner and respondent No.3 on the premise of a compromise arrived between them even prior to t