Sukh Dev Prokash Puri vs Land Acquisition Collector

P.N. Mookerjee and Amiya Kumar Mookerji, JJ.—This Rule was obtained by the Petitioner against an order of the learned Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, refusing to make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the Petitioner.

The acquisition in question was made under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, which adopted the material provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for that purpose. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which applies to such acquisitions, was invoked by the present Petitioner for his application for reference. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was not a person interested'' as he did not make any claim before the Collector before the award in question was made. The learned Collector also referred, in this present impugned order, to a question of limitation with regard to the Petitioner''s application for reference, although he did not express any final opinion on the same.

So far as the question of the Petitioner''s being a ''person interested'' for purposes of the above reference, the Collector relies on the definition of the said expression. in the Land Acquisition Act which has been adopted for purposes of acquisitions under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. That definition is in these terms:

the expression ''person interested'' included all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.

It is clear from the above quotation that the above definition is an inclusive one, which does not really affect the ordinary meaning of the expression ''person interested'' but enlarge it by including some persons, who may not otherwise have come within the said expression. The Petitioner has produced materials on which his claim of title to the disputed land is prima facie established.'' Prima facie, therefore, the Petitioner would be a person interested within the ordinary meaning of that expression and the inclusive definition quoted above, would not affect the position.

It may also be contended that the words ''compensation- to be made'' in the above definition may well be given the interpretation ''compensation payable'' and, in that view, the Petitioner, who certainly has preferred a claim to the compensation payable, would be a person interested even within the above inclusive definition o�n its own expression. In either view,. therefore, the Petitioner''s locus standi or status to maintain the above application for reference would have to be conceded. This view is well-supported by two decisions of this Court, one un-reported, in the case of Nirmalendu Mukherjee v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta Civil Revision No. 2266 of 1962 dated December 17, 1963, by P. N. Mookerjee and A. C. Sen, JJ and the other, a reported one, namely, Sailen Ghose v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta (1969) 73 C.W.N. 543 decided by S.K. Chakravarti J. and myself.

In the above view and on the above state of the authorities, the learned Collector''s first ground for refusing the Petitioner''s application for reference must be rejected.

On the question of limitation, although the learned Collector has not expressed any final opinion, he has referred in his order to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, which supports the Petitioner in his contention that his instant application for reference was not time-barred. Indeed, on the materials before us, it is clear that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition in question prior to the first week of October 1963, and his application for reference was made on October 21, 1963, which was well within the period of limitation, as explained by the Supreme Court in the above decision. The same view has also been taken, on the above authority of the Supreme Court, by this Court in the reported decision referred to hereinbefore, namely, Sailen Ghose v. Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta (1969) 73 C.W.N. 543 where subsequent decisions on the point have also been noted and explained and judiciously applied.

We would, accordingly, hold that the Petitioner''s application for reference in the instant case was quite in order and fully maintainable in law and at his instance was not barred by limitation, Accordingly, the said application should have been granted by the learned Collector.

Before we conclude we say just to add in passing that this Court has enough jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case to interfere with the impugned order of the Collector and to. set it aside under Article 227 of the Constitution: Vide Md. Golam Ali Mina and Another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another, .

In the premises, we make this Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order of the learned Collector and direct him to take reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which applies to the instant case.

There will, be no order for costs in this Rule.

Let the records go down as quickly as possible.