MANUBHAI JERAMBHAI DALWADI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are real brothers. The land in question which was subject matter of the acquisition proceedings was originally held by Jerambhai Dalwadi, father of both the petitioner and respondent No.2. Jerambhai expired on 28.02.1976. The acquisition proceedings thereafter were initiated but the land in the revenue record was not shown as divided by metes and bounds. It appears that on account of the said fact of no inter se division reflected in the revenue record, in the award of the land acquisition officer, names of the legal heirs of Jerambhai was shown, i.e., all the three sons. However, the petitioner herein raised the dispute against the compensation which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation by passing the award and in the award, the name of the petitioner was only shown as that of the original claimant. The matter was also carried in appeal before this Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed and the award of the Reference Court came to be confirmed. Thereafter, the land acquisition officer deposited the amount and at the time of disbursement of the amount, it appears that the application was made by the respondent No.2 herein resisting the disbursement to the petitioner of the whole amount and contended that he is the son of deceased Jerambhai representing 1/3rd share and therefore, the said amount should not be paid to the petitioner. The Reference Court allowed the application by the impugned order and under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides for final disposal.

(3.) As such, the jurisdiction of the Reference Court is to decide the aspects of compensation whether given as per the market value or not and other statutory benefit. However, that does not mean that the Reference Court has no incidental power to decide the claim, if the dispute is raised between more than one claimant. But such powers could be said as a summary in nature and it cannot be like that of a Civil Court examining the title or rights of the parties in the property. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner represented the property and continued to represent the property until the dispute for compensation was concluded between the land acquisition authority and the land owner/claimants. Therefore, in normal circumstances, when the petitioner was representing the property all throughout the litigation and as his name was stated in the award, he would be entitled to disbursement of the amount, but as the nominee holding the amount in trust to be distributed amongst rightful owner of the property. If any sharer of the amount has any dispute qua the apportionment of the amount which may be received by the petitioner, the proper course would be for filing an appropriate suit before the appropriate Court and the said Court after examining the title or rights of the parties concerned in the property could have passed the appropriate orders. The Reference Court in any case could not have gone into the said aspects in detail for conferring the right to receive the amount permanently. It appears that in the present case, the Reference Court has exceeded the jurisdiction in examining the said aspects.