Back
1996 Supreme(All) 25
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal, T.P.Garg
PRAYAG U P NIVESAN AVAS AVAM NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD
Versus
SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Decided On : 08 January 1996
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 30168 of 1995
Brijesh Shukla, Jarardan Sahai,
An amount paid as compensation for land acquisition is not recoverable as an arrear of land revenue unless it is an excess amount paid due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 13-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1890 - SECTION 3 - EXCESS AMOUNT PAID DUE TO CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE IN AWARD RECOVERABLE AS ARREAR OF LAND REVENUE - AMOUNT PAID TO PETITIONER NOT EXCESS AMOUNT - NOT RECOVERABLE AS ARREAR OF LAND REVENUE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a cooperative society, agreed to purchase a plot of land from respondents 3 to 5. The land was acquired by the State Government and compensation was awarded to respondents 3 to 5. However, the petitioner received the compensation amount based on a consent letter allegedly executed by respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5 later alleged that the consent letter was forged and sought recovery of the amount from the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amount paid to the petitioner was not an excess amount paid due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award, and therefore, it was not recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
Issues: Whether the amount paid to the petitioner was recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, and held that only an excess amount paid due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The amount paid to the petitioner was not an excess amount paid due to such a mistake, and therefore, it was not recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notifications seeking to recover the amount from the petitioner as an arrear of land revenue.
impleaded as respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioner had received the payment on the basti of forged consent letter. The Special Land Acqui sition Officer in his order, dated 23-8-1994 (Annexure vi to the petition) observed that the petitioner had received the amount of compensation with out disclosing full facts on the basis of consent totter which was o" doubtful character and, therefore, it was necessary to take steps for the recovery of the amount which had been paid to the petitioner or to lodge FIR against the petitioner. This letter was followed by letter, dated 27-4-1995 (Annex ure VII to the petition) from the Collector, Allahabad to S. D. M. , Chail wherein it has been stated that the amount was recoverable under the pro visions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 as if it was an arrear of land revenue and he was directed to recover the said amount. This was followed by a citation order issued by the Tehsildar, dated 1-8-1995 (Anuexure viii to the petition ). ,
2. We have heard Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the peti tioner, Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respon dents No. 3 to 5 had executed a registered agreement of sale which was subsequently followed by a sale-deed, the petitioner was interested in the award of compensation and once the amount was given to the petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to recover the amount. He has further submitted that the earlier order by which the petitioner had been given the amount was based on a genuine consent letter given by respondents No. 3 to 5 and if those respondents wanted to challenge the veracity of that letter, they should have approached the Civil Court or the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have come to a definite finding in that matter before making the order of refund from the society. He has further submitted that the amount could not be taken back from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and the proceedings of recovery as arrears of land revenue are without jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the amount is recoverable under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 as arrears of land revenue in view of Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 stipulates recovery of the amount under that Act where an arrear of land revenue or a sum re coverable as an arrear of land revenue, is payable to a Collector by a de faulter. defaulter is defined under Section 2 (3) as meaning a person from whom an arrear of land revenue, or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue, is due, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such arrear or sum. It is apparent that for the applicabili ty of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is essential that the person from whom the amount is
