SHRIDHAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MADURAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 1472 of 2008. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 7.11.2008, wherein the learned single Judge, having set aside the order of the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai) on his decision as to the title of the appellant, approved the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer refusing to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act").

(2.) The appellant herein claims himself to be a joint owner of the properties along with the contesting 4th respondent herein. The property of an extent of 86 cents is situate in Survey Nos. 15/1A2, 15/1B2 and 17/3C2, Chinthamani Village, Madurai South Taluk. The said properties were the subject matter of acquisition, Under Award No. 1/93, dated 2.2.1993. The Special Tahsildar declared the 4th respondent as 'interested person' and passed the award. As against the award, the 4th respondent had taken the matter on reference under Section 18 of the Act in L.A.O.P. No. 51 of 2005 before the Ill-Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. It is stated that already orders are passed in the L.A.O.P. During the pendency of the L.A.O.P., the appellant herein sought to implead himself in LA. No. 403 of 2005 and claimed himself to be a co-sharer. Rejecting the plea of the 4th respondent as to the claim of the appellant as the co-sharer, the impleading petition was allowed by the Court below. The 4th Respondent challenged the same by way of civil revision before this Court. By the order dated 9.3.2007, C.R.P. No. 895 of 2006 preferred by the 4th respondent was allowed by this Court holding that impleading of the appellant herein was not sustainable, that persons who make application under Section 18 alone are entitled to seek reference and that the reference Court under Section 18 is required to determine the adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award passed by the Collector. This prompted the appellant herein to move the respondents 1 and 2 for making a reference under Section 30 of the Act, more so by reason of the 4th respondent sticking to his stand that the writ appellant had no title to the property acquired and was not a co-sharer. The 2nd Respondent passed the order dated 14.2.2008, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer went into the title of the appellant herein and held that the appellant is not entitled to make any claim as an owner to share the award along with the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred the writ petition before this Court, which ended in a dismissal. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge shows that while agreeing with the contention of the appellant herein that the Land Acquisition Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a finding on title issue in favour of the 4th respondent, the learned Judge held that the conduct of the Land Acquisition Officer in refraining from referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act to the Sub-Court could not be faulted with. In so holding, the learned single Judge considered the decision of the Apex Court in Meher Rusi Dalai v. Union of India and Others AIR 2004 SC 3491 : (2004) 7 SCC 362, wherein the Apex Court considered the earlier decisions, and observed that since the appellant did not participate in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, he is not entitled to invoke Section 30 of the Act.