Vishnu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to make a reference to the District Judge, u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The facts in brief are that plot No. 631, area 4 bigha 18 biswansi, situate in village Tappa Khurd, Tehsil and district Firozabad, was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of Navin Mandi Samiti and the State Government had taken possession of the land u/s 17 of the Act. Har Prasad, Respondent No. 4, was tenure holder of this plot and an award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Respondent No. 2, in his favour.

The Petitioner claims that he entered into an agreement with Har Prasad on 19th August 1988 to purchase the right to realise the amount given in the award for a consideration of Rs. 6,66,400/-. In the agreement it was mentioned that the Petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration. On 4th October 1988 the Petitioner moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the tenure-holder may be paid a sum of Rs. 6,63,400/- and the remaining amount may be paid to him. The Respondent No. 4 is alleged to have also filed an application on 2nd April 1989 stating that he had received an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- jointly with the Petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be given. A sale deed is alleged to have been executed by Respondent No. 4 in favour of the Petitioner on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- on 21-4-1989 in pursuance of agreement deed dated 19th August 1988 by which the right to realise the compensation was sold. The Petitioner claims that on the same day he had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 4 and obtained a receipt.

The Respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26-4-1989 supported with an affidavit stating that the Petitioner had obtained the agreement by practising fraud. The Petitioner had promised that his land would be released from the acquisition proceedings if an agreement is executed for transfer of his land in favour of the Petitioner. He subsequently informed that the land could not be released. The Petitioner in collusion with the employees of Land Acquisition department obtained part of the amount of compensation. The Respondent No. 4 it an illiterate person and the Petitioner obtained his signature by practising fraud.

The Petitioner, on the other hand, moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27-4-1989 purporting to be u/s 30 of the Act requesting for payment of compensation under the award to him and to make a reference to the District Judge. He also filed an objection to the application filed by Har Prasad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application of the Petitioner for making a reference. He took the view that the sale deed dated 21-4-89 under which the Petitioner was claiming the right to receive the amount of award was an unregistered document and was unenforceable under law. The matter could not be referred to the District Judge u/s 30 of the Act without any cogent reasons.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently urged that the Petitioner had purchased an actionable claim as contemplated u/s 130 of the Transfer of Property Act and on the basis of contract he was entitled to receive compensation under the award which was given in favour of the Respondent No. 4. As the Respondent No. 4 disputed the claim of the Petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was bound to refer such dispute to the Court u/s 30 of the Act.

There are two main questions firstly, whether such dispute can be referred to the Court u/s 30 of the Act and secondly, even if such dispute is covered u/s 30 of the Act, whether the Collector was bound to refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.

The Collector makes award u/s 11 of the Act. Section 29 of the Act provides that where there are several persons interested, if such persons agree to the appointment of compensation, the particulars of such appointment shall be specified in the award. Section 30 of the Act contemplates that where there is no agreement as to the appointment of the compensation, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. Section 30 of the Act reads as under:

30 Dispute as to appointment

When the amount of compensation has been settled u/s 11, if any dispute arises as to the appointment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Colleotor may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.

The section contemplates a situation where the award is made in favour of several persons and the question of apportionment of the compensation is either not decided or if decided by the Collector there is dispute as to the apportionment. Another controversy which could be referred to u/s 30 of the Act is ''as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable''.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the second part of this section contemplates a situation where the person to whom the compensation has been paid under the award and has transferred his right to realise the amount of compensation and the dispute arises under the said contract, the dispute can be referred to the Court under the said provision. He placed reliance upon Sunder Lal Vs. Paramsukhdas, and Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, .

In Sundar Lal''s case (supra) an application was filed for impleadment of a person before the court where the matter was pending on reference u/s 18 of the Act, on the ground that he was entitled to the compensation. He claimed that an award was made against Khushal Singh. He had obtained a money decree against him. Khushal Singh, though award was made in his favour, was not claiming any right and was conceding his right in favour of Sunder Lai with the result, Paramsukh Das applicant could not execute his decree by attachment of amount of award made in favour of Khushal Singh in case Khushal Singh enters into compromise with Sundar Lai. The court had rejected the application on the basis that only such person can be taken as interested person u/s 3(b) of the Act who claims an interest in land which has been acquired and not a person claiming interest in compensation. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that a person need not claim interest in land and he shall be taken as interested person if he claims interest in compensation and was entitled to be heard under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The Supreme Court was considering the question regarding the person who can be treated as the person interested as contemplated u/s 3(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court did not consider the question regarding the right of the person to claim reference u/s 30 of the Act.

In Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar (supra) Dr. Grant was the proprietor of an estate. It was acquired by the government of Bihar. The Collector made an award awarding the amount of compensation to Dr. Grant and the members of the village. Dr. Grant applied to the Colleotor u/s 18 of the Act for making a reference. Meanwhile, the State Government published a notification u/s 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act by which the right in estate vested in the government. The government claimed a right for payment of the compensation. The District Judge on a reference u/s 30 of the Act held that Dr. Grant was entitled to compensation. The High Court in appeal set aside the said order taking the view that after publication of the notification u/s 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the right to receive compensation under the award extinguished. Dr. Grant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a person who has not appeard in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and if he is not served with notice of the filing of the award, raises a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to who it is payable and applied to the Court for making 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, his application is maintainable. The right which does not exist at the time of award but the right to receive the amount of the award devolves upon another person because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture compulsory winding up or other statutory transfer, it would be open to such party upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom the title is devolved to have prosecuted. It is thus clear that the right must have existed at the time the award was made or such right devolved upon him in accordance with law. It was not a case where the right is alleged to have been purchased by a person under a sale deed. It is a new cause of action and the person has to seek the remedy in a competent court or before such authority which may have jurisdiction to decide such dispute under any law. The right of the Petitioner did not exist at the time the award was given nor it has devolved from such party under any law. In this situation be cannot claim any reference u/s 30 of the Act.

The second question is whether the Collector is bound to make a reference u/s 30 of the Act in case any prayer is made to that effect. This matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Grant (supra). The Supreme Court observed:

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.

Exercise of the power u/s 30 to refer the dispute relating to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable is, it is true, discretionary; the Collector may but is not bound to exercise that power.

The power to make reference u/s 30 of the Act is thus, discretionary. It has to be examined as to whether it was a fit case for making a reference u/s 30 of the Act. The amount was given to the Respondent No. 4 under the award. He claimed that he was an illiterate person and he was defrauded by the Petitioner. The dispute regarding the validity of the contract and all other related question could be decided by a separate suit and it was not a it case for making a reference. It will be encouraging a litigation where innocent people may be defrauded and the amount of compensation may be taken even before such dispute could be decided or the amount may not be paid to the rightful person to whom the amount has been awarded under the award.

In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.