Syed Mohamed Badralam vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and others

Veeraswami, J.—This petition is directed against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing an application by the petitioners to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, to deposit a certain sum of money representing compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings with the usual solatium into the Court to which a reference had been made under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court below thought that it had no power to do so. It seems to me that the court below was right in its conclusion. It is no doubt true that where there is a dispute as to the title to receive the compensation, or as to the apportionment of it, the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector, as the case may be shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under S. 18 would be submitted. There was in this case such a dispute before the Land Acquisition Officer. Nevertheless, for reasons not obvious to this court, the amount or compensation had been disbursed by the Land Acquisition Officer of the second respondent. The reference under S. 18 has been made at the instance of the petitioners. In fact, they had to come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in order to compel such a reference. Pending the reference, as I said, the petitioners applied to the Court below for an order directing the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit by compensation amount as requited by S. 31(2).

There is not the slightest doubt that the Land Acquisition Officer inspite of the mandatory provision, namely, S. 31(2) disbursed the amount in disobedience of the direction contained in that provision. But the question is whether the court to which a reference has been made under S. 18 has jurisdiction to compel the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount in court. On that question, it is clear the jurisdiction of the Court below has to be determined entirely in terms of S. 18. That section enables the Court only to determine the questions relating to the measurement of the land, the quantum of compensation, the persons to whom the compensation is payable or the apportionment thereof among the persons interested. Those strictly are the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court to which a reference has been made under that section. It is obvious, therefore, that the Court below while acting under S. 18 will have no jurisdiction to call upon the Revenue Divisional Officer to deposit the amount, though such officer, as I said, in disobedience of S. 31(2) has improperly disbursed the compensation, ignoring the fact that there was a dispute as to who among the claimants was entitled to receive it.

M. Sherfuddin for the petitioners contends that the Court below could well have ordered the Land Acquisition Officer to make the deposit. In support he invites reference to The Madura Hindu Permanent Fund, Limited, though its Secretary Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and Another, and Chikkanna v. Perumal AIR 1490 Mad. 474. In the first case all that was decided was that if on a reference under S. 18 the Court directed the Government to pay any portion of the compensation to a specified person, that would not call for any interference. But in the course of the judgment, Wallace and Madhavan Nair JJ. pointed out:

We think that Government was bound, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to have ready in the District Court the amount awarded by the referring officer, for distribution according to the decision of the Dt. Court. If the District Court had in a propel reference increased the amount of compensation Government is bound to pay into Court the amount of increased compensation. The principle is not altered when an apportionment of the compensation amount is increased, and if the referring officer had obeyed S. 31, the necessary money would have been there. It is not right that Government should throw on a party, whose property it has compulsorily acquired the risk and burden of recovering the compensation from some one else to whom Government has wrongfully paid it.

I respectfully agree with these observations, as indeed I am bound by them. But this decision is no authority for the proposition that where S. 31 (2) has not been complied with, the Court to which a reference under S. 18 has been make can compel the Government to deposit But this is not to say that in exercise for jurisdiction under S. 18 the court below counsel proceed to decide as to which of the (sic) will be entitled to the compensation if and when a decision is (sic) court below that a claimant other that the one to whom payment has already been made is entitled to revive the compensation whether the person who is so entitled to receive can compel the Government to deposit the amount, and if so, through what mean, does not call for decision at this stage. It is not as if in such a contingency the petitioners will be without a remedy and they should be compelled to a suit to recover the amount from the Government. The petitioners fail now only because the court below while acting under S. 18 and before it comes to a conclusion on the reference will have no jurisdiction to compel the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation amount. The petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances with no costs.