Thangba Kom vs The State of Manipur and Others

Baharul Islam, J.—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Collector (respondent No. 2) refusing to make a reference u/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter called the ''Act''). The impugned order is at Annexure A/14.

The material and admitted facts are as follows:

There was a Land Acquisition Proceeding in which certain area of land was acquired by respondent No. 2. One of the claimants was the present petitioner. His claim was that he had purchased the land. His objection, however, was rejected by the Collector by his order dated 21-6-1972 holding that he had no interest in the land on the finding that the purchase was not proved. Subsequently also by another order dated 10-4-1973, the Collector held that the petitioner failed to prove his title to the land in question. Thereafter, the Collector made the award by his order dated 18-6-1973. On 3-12-1973, the petitioner made an application u/s 18(1) of the Act. But, as stated above, the Collector rejected the application holding that the petitioner had no interest in the land, by his impugned order.

The petitioner submits that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hold that the petitioner had no interest in the land and illegally refused to make reference u/s 18 of the Act.

The material portion of Section 18(1) reads as follows:

18(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court, whether his objection be...the persons to whom it is payable,....

"Person interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as follows:

3(b) the expression "person interested" includes 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.

"Interested" within the meaning of Section 18, in our opinion, means ''admittedly interested'' or believed or found by the Collector to be interested in the land. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, have held:

There are two provisions, Sections 18(1) and 30, which invest the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. By Sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to apportionment or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by Sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled u/s 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation, who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice is served under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, must, if he does not accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time prescribed u/s 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector may, if he is not served with notice of the filing, raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference u/s 30, for determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the award.... Again u/s 18 the Collector is bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person interested. The Collector is u/s 30 not enjoined to make a reference: he may relegate the person raising a dispute as to apportionment, or as to the person to whom compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared by his award.

It therefore follows that a ''person interested'' in the land acquired and the consequent award, can only apply u/s 18 of the Act. Who will prima facie decide whether the applicant is the person interested? The answer is obviously the Collector. If the claimant''s interest is disputed and the Collector is unable to decide or finds against him, the aggrieved claimant may make an application for reference u/s 30 of the Act, and not u/s 18, which requires the prima fade existence of interest of the claimant as a condition precedent to the application for reference. That being the position, in the instant case, as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Collector, rightly or wrongly, as early as 10-4-1973 and that order not having been moved against by the petitioner, his application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in our opinion, is incompetent, and as such the learned Collector has committed no error in refusing to make the reference.

In the result, this application fails and is rejected. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.

D. Pathak, J.

I agree.