The duty of the Collector to bring legal representatives on record and the reference Court's role in determining disputes between conflicting claimants under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---In these proceedings the applicants have impugned the correctness of an order dated 4th August, 1987, of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur, making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on an application by the fourth respondent.

2. The applicants are the legal representatives of one Maniklal Jhawar, who expired on 9th July, 1986. The maternal uncle of the deceased Maniklal was one Sundarlal Daga, whose son is the 4th respondent to these proceedings. The case of the applicants is that until 1973 Maniklal stayed at Ahmednagar, after which he shifted to Nagpur and worked thereafter with his maternal uncle, the father of the 4th respondent. The applicants claim that the agricultural land in question admeasuring 13.19 hectors, which has been subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was purchased by the deceased under a registered deed of conveyance on 1st November, 1974. The land was sought to be acquired in pursuance of notification under section 4 dated 13th December, 1982 and a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 3rd March, 1983. On 16th September, 1984 Maniklal executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the 4th respondent inter alia authorizing him to pursue the land acquisition proceedings and to receive compensation in respect thereof. According to the applicants, the power of attorney came to be revoked on 14th January 1985 and Maniklal informed the Land Acquisition Officer of the revocation of the power on 15th February, 1985. An Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be made on 30th April, 1986. On 24th May, 1986, the 4th respondent made an application for a reference under section 18 of the Act, claiming ownership in respect of the lands, which had been acquired. The case of the 4th respondent was that the property had been purchased by his father benami in the name of Maniklal Jhawar. It is common ground between the learned Counsel that Maniklal was impleaded as the third respondent to the application made before the Collector, under section 18. On 9th July, 1986, a suit was instituted by the 4th respondent being Regular Civil Suit No. 336 of 1986, before the Civil Court against the Land Acquisition Officer and Maniklal, for a declaration and injunction. The basis of the suit was the claim of the 4th respondent that the property had been purchased by his father benami in the name of Maniklal Jhawar. Maniklal expired on 9th December, 1986. The suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1987.

3. Though Maniklal died on 9th July (sic), 1986, it is common ground that the applicants here who are his legal representatives, were not brought on the record in the proceedings under section 18 before the Collector. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 states before the Court that an application for substitution that had been made before the Collector remained to be disposed of. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the applicants were not brought on record before the Collector in the proceedings under section 18.

4. By the impugned order dated 4th August, 1987, the Collector made a reference to the District Court, in pursuance of the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The order passed by the Collector is called in question in these proceedings. The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18 lay down that any order made by the Collector on an application under the section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court sub-ordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has urged that under section 18 of the Act, the Collector is duty bound to inquire into the question as to whether the application, which is moved before him satisfies the requirements of sub-s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document