BOREGOWDA AND Vs. SUBBARAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act by claimants 6 and 7 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mandya, holding that the reference made to him under Section 30 of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya, was incompetent.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge may be briefly narrated. The acquisition of 38 guntas in Survey No. 74 of R. Kodinalli village, Mandya Taluk, was notified in the Mysore Gazette of 19-3-1942 under Section 4 of the Act. The names of four persons who figured later as claimants 1 to 4 before the learned Subordinate Judge were mentioned as those of the Khatedars and Anubhavadars of the land as would appear from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer no one else seems to have appeared. He made an award on 30-4-1944 directing that the amount determined by him as compensation was to be paid to the said four persons. On 31-8-1948 he made a reference to the District Judge, Mysore, staling that a compensation of Rs. 357-3-0 was awarded in the joint names of persons who have been referred to above as claimants 1-4, that all the parties except claimant 4 who had not given any statement were claiming the entire amount and that the amount was not paid to any party and was in deposit in the Mandya District Treasury. He added that, besides, two persons Sri Javare-gowda and Patel Boregowda had also presented petitions to his office on 26-5-1948 and 27-5-1948 respectively claiming a portion of the compensation amount. He concluded by saying that in the circumstances mentioned above he had referred the Question' of apportionment of the award amount among the disputants to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case was taken on file and the tour persons who figured in the award and the two others were notified and arrayed as claimants 1 to 6. Later on two other persons, Roregowda and Deviah, sought to be impleaded and were added as claimants 7 and 8. All the claimants did not appear before the Court and the stand taken by those who did will be briefly adverted to later. There were many hearings of the case extending over a long period when the learned Judge entertaining doubts about the maintainability of the reference interrupted the recording of evidence and heard arguments on the question of maintainability. Relying upon the decision reported in Venkaia Rao v. Devaraya Gowda, 7 Mys LJ 355 he took the view that claimants 5, 7 and 8 had purported to, acquire an interest in the land subsequent to the award and were therefore not entitled to agitate their claim before Ihe Court and that claimant 6 also could not agitate his claim for, even though he purported to have acquired an interest in the land prior to the date of the award, he had not asked for a reference within the prescribed period. In the result he held that none of those claimants, i.e.. claimants 5 to 8, could agitate the question of apportionment before the Court and that the award was not liable to be interfered with.

(3.) The main contention urged by the Appellants, claimants 6 and 7, is that the learned Judge was in error in thinking that persons who acquired an interest subsequent to the award could not have their fights agitated in the proceedings before him. It is urged that once a reference is made and the matter is before Court it is open to any person interested in the land to seek to be added as a party under the provisions of the C. P. C, governing the matter. As regards no reference having been asked for within the prescribed period it is urged that the reference is not under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but under Section 30 and that such a reference is not governed by any period of limitation.