Ramswaroop vs The Urban Development and Housing Department and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition has been filed against the order dt. 6.09.2008 whereby the officer on special duty with the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur acting as the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ''the Act of 1894'') has made a reference under Sec. 30 of the Act of 1894 to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaipur in view of the fact that there was a dispute on claims before him between one Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter ''the Society'') and the petitioner with regard to the apportionment of compensation following the award dt. 05.05.1994 in respect of land including the land claimed by the petitioner in village Tilawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dt. 26.09.2008.

A bare reading of the impugned order indicates that the claim for compensation in regard to 2 bigha 5 biswa of land was hotly disputed between the petitioner and the Society. While on the one hand, the petitioner claimed compensation with regard to the acquisition of said land on the basis of inheritance from his father one Gopi Meena and the name of the petitioner in the record of rights following the death of his father, on the other hand the Society claimed its right thereto pursuant to the affidavit filed by the petitioner''s father Gopi Meena in the land acquisition proceedings accepting the fact that he had received whole of the consideration with regard to his land under acquisition from the Society and had simultaneously transferred possession thereof to the Society which was stated to be into possession. The Officer on special duty (Collector) also recorded that in the land acquisition proceedings culminating in the award dt. 05.05.1994 vide order dt. 24.01.1994, the Society had been found to be a "person interested" in terms of Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894. The Special Officer further recorded that against the order dt. 24.01.1994 holding the Society as a person interested, Civil Writ Petition No. 4441/1997 had been filed which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2002. Noting the objections of the petitioner including one based on Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter ''the Act of 1955'') and that the claim that the petitioner had never sold or otherwise transferred the land in question admeasuring 2 bigha 5 biswa to any person or society as also the objection that the Society claiming compensation and possession of the land acquired had not filed the claim in time, the Officer on special duty resorting to Section 30 of the Act of 1894 made a reference to the dispute as to the right to compensation amongst competing claimants to the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jaipur.

Section 30 of the Act of 1894 reads as under :

Dispute as to apportionment.--When the amount of compensation has been settled under Sec. 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.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reference made by the Officer on special duty under Sec. 30 of the Act of 1894 is bad for the reason that the objections raised by the petitioner were not addressed by him. In my considered opinion, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is without any force inasmuch as the Collector under the Act of 1894 is not empowered under Sec. 30 thereof to address the dispute with regard to competing claims for compensation for land acquired, but instead is required to refer the dispute/s as to entitlement to compensation under the award to the decision of the civil Court. This is what the Officer on special duty with Rajasthan Housing Board acting as the Collector in respect of the award dt. 05.05.1994 has done. In my considered opinion, the order dt. 26.09.2008, therefore is an order passed within the competence of the Collector. There is no occasion to interfere therewith.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The Civil Court (Sr. Div.), Jaipur is however directed to decide the reference under Sec. 30 of the Act of 1894 made by the Officer on special duty (the Collector) under order dt. 26.09.2008 within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say all objections/submissions of the petitioner with regard to the lack of entitlement of the society to receive compensation for the award dt. 05.05.1994 in any manner whatsoever shall be considered. This would include inter alia the question of the legality of the transaction between the Society and the father of the petitioner with reference to Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and objection on ground of limitation qua the reference. The merits of the case set up by the petitioner in all its ramification shall be considered by the civil Court.