V LAKKANNA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is presented under S.54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and award in land acquisition reference under S.18 and S. 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short).

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 3 acres 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 104 of Ulsoor village was purchased from the then Government of Mysore jointly by one Anjanappa and Puttanarasimha Setty for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 9-6-1947. Prior to the purchase of the said property, for the purpose of purchasing the land, the said two persons had borrowed two sums of money from the appellant on promissory note. The amounts of money borrowed was Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively. After the said purchase, there was an agreement between the said two persons, appellant and a few others on 4-8-1948. According to the said agreement, the land in question was to be converted into sites and sold subject to the condition that the profits realised from the said transaction should be distributed among them by making it into 19 parts and giving 51/2 part out of 19 parts to the appellant. But for some reason or the other, the agreement was not, acted upon in that, no sites were formed and sold for nearly more than 12 years. At this stage, the said land was sold by Anjanappa and Puttanarasimhaiah Setty in favour of respondent-3, by two separate sale deeds dt. 1-6-1959 and 23-11-1959 which have been marked as Exs. P-1 and P-2 respectively in the Court below. In the preamble portion of the said sale deeds, there is a reference to the agreement entered into between Anjanappa and Puttanarasimhaiah Setty on the one hand and the appellant on the other and also the entitlement of the appellant to receive some money under the agreement and the liability of Thammaiah to pay it though no such specific condition was incorporated as one of the conditions in the substantive part of the sale deeds. Even after 1959, for another 12 years nothing happened. At that stage, a preliminary notification under S. 4 of the Act was published on 12-5-1972 by the State Government proposing to acquire the said land. The final notification was also issued on 15-31973. In the proceedings for compensation, the appellant also appeared and claimed a portion of the compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired. Thammaiah, respondent-3 herein, however, claimed the entire compensartion in respect of the land to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. However, as regards apportionment of the compensation, he referred the matter to the Civil Judge under S. 31(2) of the Act. There was also a reference under S. 18 at the instance of the appellant as well as respondent-4 for enhancement of the compensation. Section 18 reference was allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 50/-per square yard. The appellant not having adduced any evidence for claiming higher rate than Rs. 50/- per square yard, is not and cannot be said to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. As regards his claim for apportionment of some portion of the compensation amount, the Court below held that the appellant was not a person who had any interest in the land and therefore he was not entitled for compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the Court below that only a person who had interest in the immovable property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can participate in the proceedings and claim apportionment of the compensation to be determined by the Court, was erroneous. He submitted that even though a person may not have any interest in the property acquired, there would be cases in which the person would have interest in the compensation payable. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundarlal v. Paramsukadas, AIR 1968 SC 366. In that case, the High Court of Bombay had taken a view similar to the one taken by the Court below in that a person having no interest in the property acquired was not entitled to be impleaded as a party in a reference under S.18 of the Act. The Supreme Court analysing the provisions of S.18 and the definition of the expression "person interested" given in S.3(b) of the Act, held that the view taken by the Bombay High Court was not correct. The Supreme Court held that the definition was wide enough to include not only persons who had interest in the immovable property acquired but also persons who had interest in the compensation payable for having acquired immovable property under the Act.