GOSWAMI VITHALNATHJI VRAJBHUSHANLALJI MAHARAJ Vs. ARUNABETIJI PURSHOTTAMLALJI MAHARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Civil Application is by one Goswamy Shri Vithalnathji Vrajbhushanlalji Maharaj seeking leave to appeal seeking leave to appeal against the order of award made by Second Joint District Judge Junagadh on 24-3-1995 on a reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad in Land Reference Case No. 85 of 1992.

(2.) The Special Land Acquisition Officer being in confused state of mind in determining as to whom the compensation for acquisition of land be awarded in respect of the property of Vishnav Haveli called Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli, at Junagadh which is admittedly of a public trust. Before making reference the Land Acquisition officer tried to seek guidance from Joint Charity Commissioner to determine the question of person interested to whom compensated to be granted as the property was a trust property. In reference two persons were arrayed as parties (1) Arunabetiji Purshottamlalji Maharaja and (2) Goswami Kishorchandraji Purushottamlalji. Arunabetiji is the daughter of Shri Purshottamlalji Maharaja (Purshottamlaji for the present purposes is called as original trustee of the trust in question) and Goswamiji Kishorchandra claimed himself to be the adopted son of Purshottamlalji adopted to Purshottamlaji by his widow Chandraprabha Bahuji Maharaj. That reference has been decided by the order under appeal dated 24-3-1998 by agreement between respondent No.1 and 2 in which Arunabetiji accepted the claim of Gowswami Kishorechandraji Maharaj as a trustee of the property in question and permitted the amount of compensation to be paid to him as trustee. In these circumstances, the court directed the amount of compensation to be paid to respondent No.2 for the purpose of trust Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli at Junagadh as trustee. Prior to this, it may be noticed that the amount of compensation was deposited in the fixed deposit scheme in Dena Bank, Junagadh and Indian Bank, Junagadh under the directions of this Court, the Second Joint District Judge gave further directions in consonance with the position of respondent No.2 as trustee, to make a declaration on oath that the amount of dividend or interest which may be earned as aas a result of the above said investment would be utilised fully for the objects and purpose of the trust and respondent No.2 shall keep proper accounts of the dividend or interest which the trust shall receive and which will be used for the purpose and objects of the trust. It was also directed that the said opponent No.2 shall utilise the amount of principal only after taking necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner whenever so required.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents. It was urged that the present applicant was not at all a party in proceedings for determination of compensation which culminated in the award made by the Collector. In reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the scope is limited to the dispute referred under Section 30 and determination of applicant's rights being not referred to it, is beyond the scope of reference made or that could be made under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore a person like the present applicant stranger to proceedings before the Collector cannot in any circumstance be heard in the matter referred to court. Consequently he also has no right to maintain this appeal as a person aggrieved or a person interested against the award made by the Court.