Niranjan Singh and Others vs Amar Singh and Others

Whether a person, who had not filed any claim in response to a notice issued u/s g of the Land Acquisition Act (''the Act'' for short) and had pot participated in the enquiry held by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ''the Collector'') u/s 11 ot the Act and had not raised any dispute for the apportionment of compensation before the Collector, can be impleaded as a party to the proceedings pending before the Court on a reference made by the Collector u/s 30 of the AM against the wishes of the person on whose application reference has been made, is the short but meaningful question raised in.his revision petition u/s 115 of the Civil P. C.

A brief survey of the pertinent facts will help illumine the contours of forensic controversy:

Amar Singh, respondent No. 1, ''to this. revision petition, moved an application raising a dispute regarding the title of the lend, in dispute, measuring 20 Kanals, situated in village Abheypur and apportionment of its compensation determined by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred "n him under S. 30 of the Act, the Collector referred the dispute between Amar Singh and the Gram Panchayat over the apportionment ot the compensation to the Court for decision. The matter was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge. Ambala, for disposal. The petitioners made an application under O. l, R. 10 of the Civil p. C., t., ''the Court for being impleaded/added either as applicants or respondents to the reference u/s 30 of the Act. Amar Singh oppose. this application. The learned Additional District Judge held that the statement u/s 19 "the Act placed of the record indicated that Amar Singh had interest in the land and prima fact, shamilat deh of a village vests in the Gram Panchayat ; ot that village under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, The Gram Panchayat was already a party to the proceedings. The applicants were not parties before the Collector. Relying on two decisions in Basalingappa Gowda v. Nagamma AIR 1969 Mys 313 and Municipality, Nalgonda Vs. Hakeem Mohiuddin and Others, he also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to implead a person, to a reference, who was not a party before the Collector. He dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. They have now come up in the revision to this Court.

The answer to the question raised falls to be decided on a conspectus of the relevant provision of the Act. u/s 9 of the Act the Collector is required to cause a public notice of the intention of the Government to take possession of land and inviting the persons interested to file,their claims and appear before the Collector personally or by an agent at the time and place mentioned therein and to state their respective interest in the land and the particulars of their claims to compensation. u/s 11 of the Act, the Collector is enjoined to, make an enquiry and make an award regarding the area of the land; the compensation for the land and apportionment of compensation among the persons know or believed to be interested in the land of whose claims he had information whether or not they have appeared before him. Such an award, u/s 12 of the Act, shall be filed in the office of the Collector and shall be final.and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested. Part IV of the Act prescribes the procedure for ''apportionment of. compensation''. Section 30 of the Act heads as under:

"Section 30: Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of compensation has been settled under.Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as ''to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable; the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.

xx xx xx xx"

Section 53 of the Act lays down that the provisions of the Civil p. C. so far as they are not inconsistent with any provisions of the Act shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. It is reproduced be law:

"Section 53: Code ot Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings before Court: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything. contained in this Act, the provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act."

3 A. '' The petitioners did not. file any claim to this land. They did not appear before the Collector during the enquiry u/s 11 of the Act. The petitioners did not make any application u/s 30 before the Collector for apportionment of the compensation. An application was made by Amar Singh and he contended that there was a dispute between him end the Gram Panchayat regarding the apportionment of compensation of the land, in dispute. Reference had been made at the instance of Amar Singh who had impleaded the Gram Panchayat as a party.

Proceedings before the Court on a reference made by the Collector under.Section 30. are of e special nature. The Court ''can take cognizance of the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation of the acquired land, only on a reference and the enquiry is confined to a dispute between certain parties The Court cannot enlarge its scope by impleading others as parties. The persons who had not appeared before the Collector and staked any claim to compensation for the land, in dispute, and have, not raised any grievance as to the apportionment of compensation in the award of the Collector, and not come forward to join issue before the Court adjudicating on the reference. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Municipality, Nalgonda v. Hakeem Mohiuddin AIR 1984 AP 305 while interpreting Section 25 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act.which correspond; to Section 30 of the Act, observed a.� follows:

"In an apportionment case referred:o the Court u/s 25 corresponding to Section 30 of the Indian Land A acquisition act), a person who had not appeared before the Taluqdar and whose name is not mentioned in the reference, cannot be added as a party to the proceedings before the Court nor can he urge his claim to compensation on that reference:" A similar view was taken in Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer, Bhimavaram AIR 1958 AP 226 and Manjur Ahmed and on his death his heirs and legal representatives, Akhtari Bibi and Others Vs. Rajlakshmi Dassi and Others, . In fact this view has prevailed in the Calcutta High Court. over a long period of time. Mysore High Court in. Basalingappa Gowda v. Nagamma AIR 1969 Mys 313 has expressed the same view that a court cannot implead a person, who have: appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and did not figure as a claimant before him. The jurisdiction of the Court is derived from the reference made by the Collector u/s 30 of the Act. Only the disputants to the dispute in respect of which a reference has been made u/s 30 a e parties before the Court. The Collector in a dispute regarding apportionment has no jurisdiction to enquire into the title to the acquired land and, give a decision thereon. Only the civil court do so. Provisions of the Civil P. C. will apply to a reference u/s 30 only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. There is no general jurisdiction with the Court to bring on record additional parties as a civil court may do in the case of an ordinary civil suit. In a recent decision K. C. Aggarwal, J. of the Allahabad High Court in Tejdhari and Others Vs. Baul and Others, has taken the same view. He has held that the power conferred on the Court u/s 30 is only in respect of a matter referred to by the Collector. It is not a Court of original jurisdiction entitled to entertain the dispute between the parties on its own. Its jurisdiction is confined to the matter referred. A person applying for impleadment can claim his right only through the party, the right of which had been referred to by the Collector for decision to the Court. A contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra Singh AIR 1 67 Pat 243. It has been held:

"Section 30 contemplates two types of cases to be referred to the Court by the Collector namely dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation and !he person to whom compensation is payable. If the dispute is as to the apportionment of the compensation, persons who have not come before the Collector during the proceedings for making the award, may not be permitted to come before the Court, because the dispute referred to the court is confined to the apportionment of the compensation amount. But, if the reference is in regard to the person to whom the compensation many is payable, the scope of the decision of the Court will be who are the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation. In such a case, although a person might not have been before the Collector during the proceedings for making the award. if that person is an ''interested person'' within the meaning of the definition under the Act, the court can add such a person as a party in. deciding the � reference as to whom the compensation amount is payable. For, under S. 53 of the Act, the provisions under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C. are clearly attracted to case of reference u/s 30 before the Court when the nature of the dispute under reference does no'' change." This view was not accepted by Justice Aggarwal. He did not accept that there was difference between the two types of eases. It seems that it was not pointed out by the parties to the Bench deciding Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer''s case (supra) that the court gets jurisdiction to determine apportionment only on a reference made by the Collector. I am in respectful, agreement with the preponderant view enunciated by the Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh, Mysore and Allahabad High Courts. The order of the Additional District Judge s in consonance with law.

As a result, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.