TMI Blog1976 (6) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947. The petitioner is the headman of this village and he has been in exclusive possession of the lands of the village realising house tax from the residents of the village for the purpose of paying the same to the Government. 3. While the petitioner was the owner in occupation of the lands of the village, in 1965-66 the respondents took possession of an area of 12.99 acres of land in the said village without any authority, for the purpose of construction of some houses for some Government office on the assumption that it was Government khas land. Thereupon the petitioner filed successive applications (Annexures A/3 to A/6) to the respondents, praying for arranging to pay reasonable compensation to him for the land so occupied stating that it was his land. At last on the basis of the application at Annexure A/3, the Government of Manipur caused an enquiry to be made by the S. D. O. Mao Sadar Hill Subdivision to ascertain whether the land in question belongs to the petitioner and falls within his village Nungphou or it is Government khas land. The said S. D. O., after an enquiry submitted a report on 1-7-1966 to the Deputy Commissioner, Mani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter might be reviewed in consultation with the law department; but it appears this request was not heeded to. At last the respondent No. 1 made a reference to the District Judge, purportedly under Section 30 of the L.A. Act, in compliance with the letter of the Revenue Secretary (Annexure A/15). In the letter of reference (Annexure A/18) the Collector stated it is claimed in the petition (of the Revenue Secretary) that Shri Phongseh Misao (petitioner) is not entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Collector in L.A. Case No. 1 of 1972. It is against this reference the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition with the prayers, as mentioned above alleging, inter alia, that the reference made by the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction and that the respondents are bound in law to pay him the compensation awarded by the Collector for the acquired land. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit sworn by the Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur, Development department, resisting the claim of the petitioner. It appears from the counter affidavit that the stand of the respondents is not very clear. At one place in the counter affidavit, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 973 SC 1362. We may also refer here to the decision of the Patna High Court in Sudhangshu Kumar v. L.A. Officer AIR 1961 Pat 150, the facts of which are very much similar to those of the present case. In that case it was held that the existence of a dispute as regards apportionment of compensation is a question of jurisdictional fact and unless there is such a dispute existing, the L.A. Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30. It was further held that where the jurisdiction of an Administrative Authority depends upon a preliminary finding of fact, the High Court is entitled, in a proceeding for a writ of certiorari, to determine by its independent judgment whether or not that finding of fact is correct. 9. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that the objection of the learned Government Advocate as to the jurisdiction of this Court is wholly untenable. We now proceed to examine the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned earlier. 10. The contention of Mr. Nanda Kumar Singh that once an acquisition proceeding is taken up and an award is made, the Government has no right to intervene and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. In the notice under Section 4(1) (Annexure A/8) as well as in the notice under Section 9 of the Act (Annexure A/10) the land was described as situate at Nungphou which is admittedly the village of the petitioner. Copies of these notices were separately sent to the petitioner by the Collector for information. In spite of publicity given to these notifications none else except the petitioner laid any claim for compensation. The Collector after due enquiry, as required under the Act, by his award dated 29-1-1973 held that the land belonged to the petitioner Shri Phongseh Misao and awarded compensation accordingly. At no stage of the acquisition proceedings, before the Award was made, Government raised any objection about the eligibility of the petitioner to receive such compensation. On the same day the award was made, the Collector wrote to the Development Commissioner to make available the sum of ₹ 59,616/- awarded as compensation for payment to the petitioner. The Government slept over the matter till 26-3-1975 on which date the Revenue Secretary, Government of Manipur filed an application before the Collector for a reference of the case to the District Judge under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.A. Act means a quarrel between two or more rival parties laying claim over the whole or any part of the compensation money. The use of the word persons i.e. in plural number in the section is also significant. Reference of a dispute as to the persons to whom the amount of compensation is payable is evidently meant for determination as to which person is entitled to receive the money. There must be such a person amongst the rival contending parties. In the instant case the respondents in their application filed before the Collector (Annexure A/15) has not stated who is entitled to receive the money; nor has the Collector in his reference asked the District Judge to decide who is the person entitled to receive the compensation money. He has simply asked the District Judge to decide whether or not the petitioner is entitled to receive the money. This is not within the scope and ambit of Section 30 of the L.A. Act, in our opinion. In fact the Collector also took the same view, as we have taken, as is evident from his letter addressed to the Hill Commissioner (Annexure A/17). It appears ultimately he had to yield to the pressure of the Government in making the reference. It may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng regard to the whole course of the land acquisition proceedings which were utterly inconsistent with the land being Government land, the Government is now estopped from claiming that the land is Government khas land or that the Government is the actual owner of the land comprised in village Nungphou. In making this submission Mr. Nanda Kumar Singh relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Secretary of State v. Tatya Saheb AIR 1932 Bom 386. Though this contention appears to have some force, it is not necessary, in our opinion, for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition to decide as to whether or not the Government is estopped from saying so. We have already held that there was no dispute before the Collector as to the persons to whom the compensation money is payable. In the absence of such a dispute the Collector could have no jurisdiction to make a reference to the District Judge. The respondents are bound to pay the compensation money to the petitioner in terms of the award made by respondent No. 1. 16. In the result this petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The reference made by the Collector to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
