1979 Supreme(MP) 77

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. L. Malik and S. K. Seth, JJ.
STATE OF M.P. - Appellant
Versus
SUGANDHI - Respondents
First Appeal 213 Of 1973
Decided On : 05/05/1979

The provisions of Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act are directory and not mandatory. Failure to serve notice under Section 9 (3) does not invalidate the award absolutely. A person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings because he was not served with notice, is yet entitled to raise dispute relating to apportionment, measurement and the amount of compensation and ask the collector to make a reference under Section 18 to Court.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - NOTICE - MANDATORY - FAILURE TO SERVE - EFFECT - REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 - CLAIMANT NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE - ENTITLED TO MAKE REFERENCE - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - NOT MAINTAINABLE - COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - BARRED - NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS - LIABILITY OF STATE - REFUND OF COMPENSATION - LIABILITY OF HEIRS OF PERSON TO WHOM COMPENSATION WAS PAID.

Fact of the Case:

Dammulal, whose legal representatives are respondents 1 to 12 in both the First Appeals, made an application before the Collector that he alone was entitled to receive the whole compensation and that no notice was served on him nor on Satisb Chandra (respondent No. 23) who occupied a portion of the building for his Office of "paras Film Exchange". Dammulal also contended that compensation determined was too inadequate. He claimed a reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act to Court. Dammulal said that he acquired knowledge of the acquisition proceedings on the 24th July, 1963.

Finding of the Court:

The provision of Section 9 (3) of the Act could not then be mandatory. Coming to the second and third points, the acquisition not having been challenged on the ground of colourable exercise of power, and the declaration under Section 6 having become final and conclusive under Section 6 (3) of the act, and the plaintiffs having chosen to claim a reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation on the basis of the award made by the Land acquisition Officer, a suit to challenge the award at the same time, would be adopting an inconsistent position. That cannot be permitted to be done (See: tincori Das v. L. A. Collector, Alipore ((1966) 70 Cal WN 1100 ). The jurisdiction of the Court under Section I8 in matters relating to measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, is exclusive and special and the same jurisdiction cannot be concurrently exercised by ordinary Courts. Where rights and liabilities are created under a statute and jurisdiction has also been conferred on a special Court for investigating the matters, limited though they may be in controversy, the special Court alone would exercise jurisdiction in those matters.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 9 (3) as to notices were directory or mandatory, and whether imperfect compliance or non-compliance of those provisions invalidated the award absolutely ? 2. What would be the effect where reference had been claimed under Section 18 of the Act by the person interested, who had no special notice but who acquired knowledge of the acquisition proceedings after the award was made and when the reference on his account had been entertained 3. Whether a suit could lie for the relief of declaration claimed (which in fact, has been allowed under the decree) where the Act had made exhaustive and self contained provisions under Section 18, and where the claim in substance was not to challenge the acquisition but to get fair and reasonable compensation determined ? 4. Could mala fides be attributed to the officers and could the State be made liable to pay compensation amount over again to the plaintiffs, or should Radhabai's heirs alone be made liable to pay back the compensation to the plaintiffs ?

Ratio Decidendi: A person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings because he was not served with notice, is yet entitled to raise dispute relating to apportionment, measurement and the amount of compensation and ask the collector to make a reference under Section 18 to Court. The determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, under the scheme of the Act, is an offer not only to those who might have appeared before him and advanced their claims, but also to those who for some reason did not participate in the determination of the offer but had interest in the land acquired. The compensation that the Land Acquisition Collector determines is for the whole body of persons interested in the land, whether or not they appear before him.

Final Decision: The First Appeal No. 213 of 1973 is accordingly accepted and a decree for the relief of refund is granted as above. Counsel's fee as per schedule. First Appeal no. 49 of 1972: Having decreed plaintiff's claim against Radhabai's heirs for refund of Rs. 55135. 60 Nps. , the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether quantum of compensation has been fairly determined by the Court.