9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be allowed to amend their pleadings or make fresh pleadings with respect to the alleged compromise as filed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 232 of 1960. Mr. S. T. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends: (1)That the High Court has no jurisdiction under s. 115. to interfere with the orders of the Civil Judge, dated April 9, 1962; (2) That Paramsukhdas, respondent No. 1, is not a person interested in the compensation and is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the references under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (I of 1894)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-, (3) That, if at all, no revision but appeal lay to the High Court. Before dealing with the above contentions it is necessary to state the relevant facts. Sunderlal, appellant, owned some land (field No. 22) in Monza Umari, Taluq and District Akola. This field had been leased to Khushal Singh under a registered lease for 5 years commencing from April 1, 1954. The field was acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on January 30, 1960, and assessed the total compensation at ₹ 26,105.58, and apportioned the amount equally between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court, in Special Civil Application No. 232 of 1960. It was stated in. the compromise petition that Khushal Singh did not wish to dispute Sunderlal's contention that the land was leased for horticulture purposes and that he had not acquired the status of a protected lessee, as defined in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. Khushal Singh further stated that he had no objection to the quashing of the orders of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated March 22, 1960, and of the Deputy Collector dated October 8, 1959. On March 11, 1961, Paramsukhdas filed an application (Civil Application No. 246 of 1961) in the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 232 of 1960, claiming to be heard. He alleged that he had obtained a decree against Khushal Singh and started execution proceedings for ₹ 20,013/and the amount of ₹ 13,644.27 ordered to be paid to Khushal Singh as compensation had been attached by him for the satisfaction of his decree. He alleged that Khushal Singh and Sunderlal had mala fide entered into an agreement and had filed a compromise application asking for quashing of the orders of the Revenue Courts with the sole object of setting at naug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or added as a party to these two references." He held that admittedly Paramsukhdas had not approached the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings in which the award was passed on January 30, 1960. He had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer as a person interested in the land or the compensation that would be determined by the authorities. He further held that under the circumstances Paramsukhdas was not one of the persons interested in the acquired land before the Collector, and he also could not be one, of the persons interested in the objections under s. 20.(b) of the Act. After referring to Manjoor Ahmad v. Rajlaxmi Dasi (1) and Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee (2), he hold that the scope of the reference under s. 18 was limited and new questions not covered by the reference could not be entertained. He reviewed his orders on July 6, 1962, but nothing turns on that in the present appeals. Paramsukhdas filed two revisions, Nos. 294 and 295 of 1962, before the High Court on June 30, 1962. On August 22, 1962, Sunderlal filed an application for withdrawal of Special Civil Application No. 232 of 1960. The High Court, on September 24, 1962, ordered: "Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is interested in an easement affecting the land." It will be noticed that it is an inclusive definition. It is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition a person should claim an interest in land, which has been acquired. A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded. It seems to us that Paramsukhdas is a "person interested" within s. 3(b) of the Act because he claims an interest in compensation. But before he can be made a party in a reference it has to be seen whether he comes within s, 20(b) and s.21 of the Act. (a) The scheme of the Act seems to be to first deal with persons who are interested in land. These persons are heard under s. 5A of the Act. The ordinary meaning of "the person interested in land" is expanded by s. 5A(3), for the purposes of this section, to include a person who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation. It would be strange to come to the conclusion that the Legislature is keen that a person claiming an interest in compensation should be heard before the land is acquired but is not interested in him after the land is acquired. On the contrary, it follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g an interest in compensation may not claim that the compensation awarded for the acquired land is low, if it affects his interests, In the view we have taken we are supported by some authorities. Shah, J., speaking for the majority in Grant v. State of Bihar,(A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237) observed: "The right of the State of Bihar arose on May 22, 1952 when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which prohibits the Collector from making a reference under s. 30 for determination of the title of the person who has since the date of the award acquired a right to the compensation. If after a reference is made to the Court the person interested dies and his title devolves upon another person, because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture, compulsory winding up or other form of statutory transfer, it would be open to the, party upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom the title has devolved could have prosecuted. In Promotha Nath Mitra v. Rakshal Das Addy before the Civil Court. Mookerjee it was held that a reference made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey. Here no such point has been raised. It has not been urged before us that Paramsukhdas was a party before the Collector and that having not applied for a reference under s. 18 he is now debarred from being added as a party. The case of Gobinda Kumar Roy Chowdhury v. Debendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury(3) was also decided on the same lines. Similar view was reiterated in Mahammad Safi v. Haran Chandra(4). Both these cases had followed Abu Bakar v. Peary Mahan Mukerjee(5). Maclean, C. J., observed as follows in Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukerjee(5). "If we read that section in connection with section 20 and section 18, I think it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Legislature intended that all that the Court could deal with was the objection which had been referred to it; and this seems to be a view consistent with commonsense and with the ordinary method of procedure in civil cases. The zemindar here could, if he liked, have raised the objection as to the whole compensation for the trees being given to the tenants, but he did not do so. He must, therefore, be taken to have accepted the award in that respect; and it would be little less than dangerous if we were to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
