Gobind Ram vs Kora Ram and ors.

M.S. Liberhan, J. (Oral)

The sole question raised in this revision petition is whether on reference by the Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Court can order the deposit of compensation in terms of Section 31 of the Act in Court by a party, who had already received the compensation from the Collector.

The conspectus of facts giving rise to the above question are that the land in dispute was acquired and the award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17 3.1986. On 2731986 Kora Ram respondent raised objections under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act, claiming title to the extent of onehalf of the compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Collector paid compensation to the tune of Rs 1,07,000/ to the petitioner. The respondents also preferred a claim under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act, of the claim of Kora Ram to the Court for determination of the title of Kora Ram as well as the apportionment of the amount of compensation. The claim of Gobind Ram for enhancement of compensation, was also referred to the Court.

During pendency of the reference before the Court, Kora Ram respondent preferred an application to the Court, inter alia stating that the Collector had no jurisdiction to disburse the compensation to Gobind Ram petitioner, in view of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act as a dispute had been raised by him with respect to the title of Gobind Ram to the acquired land to the extent of his half share. Prayer was made that he be directed to deposit the compensation of Rs. 1,07,736/ received by him, before the District Judge during the pendency of the reference and the final determination of the title of Kora Ram The Additional District Judge. vide his impugned order dated 761988 directed Gobind Ram to deposit the amount of compensation received by him, holding that the Collector was not justified in disbursing the said amount to Govind Rarn, in view of Section 31(2) of the Act, which was mandatory. Section 32(2) of the Act reads as under :

"31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court

(1) xx xx xx

(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted:

Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount :

Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18

Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may received the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto".

It was observed that payment of compensation to Gobind Ram inspite of specific bar of Section 31(2) of the Act amounts to an error committed by the Tribunal on the face of it and no party can be made to suffer on account of the error of the Court or the Tribunal. The learned Court relied on Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur v. Corporation of the City of Jabalpur, AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 339 and Jog Raj etc. v. Banarsi Dass alias Bane Gopal (deceased) etc., 1978 Current Law Journal 232.

The learned counsel for the petitioner impugned the order of the Court below and contended that the Additional District Judge, to whom the reference had been made had no jurisdiction or power to order recall of the compensation amount already paid to a party and to make an order in respect of it under, Section 31(2) of the Act. It was contended that the reasoning adopted by the Court was not sustainable in law.

In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court with respect to onehalf amount of the compensation received by the petitioner for its refund to the person found entitled to the same by the Court, and was further prepared to file an undertaking to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its receipt to the date of refund,

It was contended'' that the claim of Kora Ram was only with respect to onehalf of the amount of Compensation. Hence, the learned Additional District Judge could not order for the deposit in Court of the other half of the amount with respect to which there was no dispute. It was contended that the judgments reported in Hitkarini Sabha as well as Jog Raj''s cases (supra) are not peri miteria either on facts or the question of law involved in this case.

The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act are mandatory and the learned Collector had no jurisdiction to disburse the amount when an objection with respect to the title had been raised even before the award was pronounced. It was incumbent for the Collector to deposit the disputed amount of compensation in the Court and. make a reference for determination with respect to the entitlement of the rival claimants. It is under the orders of the Court that the compensation could have been paid to a person found entitled to the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently relied on

in order to determine the controversy, it would be advantageous to take note of the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. The scheme of the Act is that after the land has been notified and the Collector enters into an enquiry with respect to the determining value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4. of the Act and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, he shall make an award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act. Section I I enjoins a duty on the Collector viz. while giving the award the Collector is to determine:

"(i) the true area of land, (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land, and (iii) the appertionment of the said compensation among all the persons. known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information whether or not they have appeared before him. After the matter is determined in terms of Section I I of the Act Section the award is made final and conclusive as between the Collector and the persons interested. with respect to be true area and value of the land and apportionment of'' the compensation among the persons interested. This statutory presumption has been provided by before 12 of the Act. It further provides that the Collector shall give notice of the award to such persons interested, who were not present before him in person. The Collector is bound to offer compensation to the persons interested found by him under Section 11 before taking possession as envisaged by Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act gives a right to the claimants to apply to the Collector for referring the matter in dispute for determination to the Court. The claimant can and that a right to object under Section 15 with respect to the matters determined by the Collector i.e. measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. A statutory limitation has been provided that objection can be raised within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award, if the person interested was present and within six months if the person was not present and has been intimated of the award as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act. However another exception has been'' carved out ''with ''respect to the finality of the award given where an option has been given to the Collector to refer the dispute as to the apportionment or for the determination of the title, of the party. It has been envisaged by Section 30 of the Act that when compensation has been settled under the provisions of this Section and if any dispute arises about the apportionment of the same or any part there of or the persons to whom the same is payable, the Collector instead of determining himself, may refer the dispute for the decision of the Court keeping the facts and circumstances of each case in view. Further, the Collector is enjoined under Section 31 of the Act to deposit the amount of compensation in Court to which reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act, has been made in case the person interested and found entitled to the compensation in terms of Section 11, does not consent to receive it, Or where there is no person competent to alienate the land or in case there is a dispute as to the title of the land or to receive the compensation or its apportionment. The persons interested may receive compensation offered to them in, terms of Section 11 under protest as to its sufficiency. A bar has been put on the rights of the parties to claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act who have accepted the compensation without any protest. It has been made clear by the statutory provisions of the act that the persons wrongfully receiving the compensation shall not be absolved from their liability to pay compensation to the persons lawfully entitled found later. A reading of the provisions of the Act, as stated by me above, makes it obvious that where a dispute is raised with respect to the title to receive the compensation by the persons interested, the Collector, in ordinary course, is bound to refer the matter to the Court to determine the title. It is further mandatory and incumbent upon the Collector in such cases to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court. By not observing the provisions of law in this respect the Collector may be throwing the State to a risk of creating its liability twice over. However, nothing has been provided in the statute with respect to cases wherein the Collector pays the amount to a person in violation of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act. There is no doubt that observations have been made in the judgment cited in Jog Raj''s cse (supra) to the effect that the Court is competent to direct a party to refund the amount already received by him. It was observed in the judgment that the violation of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act committed by the Collector amounts to an error committed by him in the course of discharge of his duties and a party cannot be made to suffer on account of this error on the part of the Collector. It is the primary duty of the Court to rectify the error committed by the Collector, by bringing the action of the Collector in line with the statutory requirements by ordering that the money be forthwith brought into Court as an interim measure.

In my considered view, the above observations of the Court have been made in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It was a case where title of the parties as well as the apportionment has already been determined by the Court and it was in the execution proceedings that the executing Court directed a party who has received the compensation illegally and without right to title, to refund or deposit the amount in Court has been given the attributes of a decree. When a decree is passed in favour or a rightful owner the same can be executed and for execution of a decree, the Court was within its jurisdiction to direct the refund of the amount already wrongfully received by a party. In the case in hand, however, this is not the situation. Herein the rights of the parties still have not been determined by the Court to whom the matter has been referred under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act. Apart from this, the observations cited have been taken note of by the Hon''ble Judge, the Madhya Pradesh High Court''s judgment does not determines the questions raised herein. Rather it has been kept open and it was observed, " the learned counsel for the applicant relied strongly on State of Gujarat etc. v. Sankal Chand Khodidas Patel (dead) by L. Rs. 1978 Current Law Journal 226. Abdul Sattar v. Hamida Bibi, AIR 1950 Lahore 229 (F.B) wherein it was laid down that it was not open to the reference Court to recall the money which had been paid by the Collector. It appears that on this part of the case there is a certain amount of difference of opinion in India. The Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in the last cited case referred to Gobindarance Dasee v. Ali Muhmmad. AIR 1921 Lahore 153 (G). The cases to which we have referred and they are many others clearly show that the Court can be in a suitable case order the amount to be returned or paid to the rightful party. We do not think that it is necessary to decide finally this question, because on the terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is quite clear that the Collector acted against the express provisions of Section 31(2) ibid in making the payment when there was a dispute as to who should receive the compensation money".

In view of my observations made above, the facts and circumstances of this case are totally different. Here the right of Kore Ram has not been determined either by the Collector or the Court. There is noting on the record to prima facie show that Kora Ram had any title to the compensation. Apart from this, there is no dispute that Kora Ram is only claiming half the compensation. I find no reason why a rightful claimant to whom compensation had been awarded by the Collector should be deprived of even that part of the compensation to which there is no dispute.

Apart from the above observations of mine, in Abdul Sattar v. Smt. Hamida Bibi, AIR 1950 Lahore 229 (FB) after taking into consideration the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions of law which are pari materia with the provisions of law under consideration, it was held that :

"Where the amount of compensation has already been paid to the person who, according to the award, was entitled to it and no objection was put in by any interested party before its payment it is not open to the Court on a reference being made to it, to recall the money and to make an order in respect of it under Section 32."

Nothing has been pointed out to show that the money was not paid before an objection was raised in terms of the award though it is contended that the compensation has been awarded to the petitioner Gobind Ram.

Be that as it is may, I find no authority with the referring Court to pass an ad interim order directing one of'' the rival claimants having received the compensation to redeposit the same in Court before determining the rights of the respective parties. This does not mean that the referring Court cannot pass a suitable order to protect the interest of a party to the claim in a suitable case according to the exigency of the circumstances brought on record The Court will be competent enough to pass appropriate order of injunction, receiver or attachment before judgment etc. to protect the interests of a person interested in the lis. I am in agreement with the observations made in the Full Bench judgment reported in Abdul Sattar''s case (supra) which squarely covers the facts and circumstances of this case. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner made an offer that suitable order may be passed i.e. at the most the petitioner may be asked to furnish security for refund of the disputed amount together with reasonable interest thereon to protect the interest of Kora Ram respondent. though it has been vehemently contended that the claim of Kora Ram had been rejected by the Civil Court, by the revenue Court as well as by the arbitrator appointed by the parties mutually.

In my view the interest of Kora Ram would be squarely protected if Gobind Ram furnishes a security to the satisfaction of the Court for the refund of the amount to which Kora Ram may be found entitled to with an undertaking that the same shall be paid with 18% interest from the date of its receipt till the date of payment. I order accordingly. The security as well as the undertaking may be furnished within three weeks, In case the security as well as the undertaking is not filed within the time stipulated, the revision petition shall be deemed to, have been dismissed.

With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order is modified to the extent as stated above and the revision petition. is disposed of with no order as to costs.