GOVIND NARAYAN LOTLIKAR Vs. SAVITRIBAI ROGHUVIRA LOTLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the District Court in a reference under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, implead persons who claim to be entitled to the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceedings or to a part thereof, or who claim to be interested in the acquired property, when the same persons were not parties before the Collector, is the question that arises in this revision application. The petitioner's answer to this question is in the affirmative while the respondents are of the opposite view.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and strictly speaking, it is not necessary for me to advert to them in detail. It suffices to say that proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of a plot of land situated at Curchorem, for the construction of Police Staff Quarters. It appears that initially, only the respondents Dr. Jusha Kudchadkar and Prabhakar Kudchadkar were shown as the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. However, before the passing of the award, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (Lotlikars) filed an application before the Collector alleging to be interested parties, since the acquired land belonged to them. The Collector passed his award, but since he felt that he was unable to determine who was entitled to the compensation, he referred the dispute raised by the aforesaid respondents Lotlikar, to the district Court under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference is still pending disposal in the District Court, South Goa, and at one stage of the said proceedings, the petitioner herein filed an application dated 7th March, 1985 praying that he be impleaded as a party in the said reference, since, according to him, the acquired land is a joint property in which he also has a right, share and interest. The learned Judge however, by his order dated 14th August, 1985, dismissed the application on the ground that no new parties can be added in a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. He held the view that such reference is to be disposed of only amongst the parties who are impleaded in the same reference which is to be otherwise adjudicated in its precise terms. He added that apart from this, if the applicant/petitioner herein so desires, it was open to him to approach the Land Acquisition Officer to reframe the terms of the reference, or to file a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction to get redress to his grievances. It is against this order that the present revision application is directed.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the District Judge, South Goa, was wrong in dismissing the application on the ground that no new parties can be added in a reference made under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector or Land Acquisition Officer. He invited my attention to S.53 of the Act which provides that save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will apply to the proceedings before the Court under the same Act. He urged that there is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, and in its scheme, which is inconsistent with the impleading of interested parties in a reference and much to the contrary, this impleading is fully consistent with the Act. In fact, "person interested" is defined in S.3(b) as including all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of acquisition of land under the Act and that a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. This definition is wide enough to include in it persons who claim any kind of interest in the land Therefore, a person who claims to have a share in the said property is naturally, to be held as an interested party. The petitioner has approached the Court precisely with a case that he is one of the co-owners of the acquired land and, as such, he is claiming a share in the said property. It cannot be disputed therefore, that under the Land Acquisition Act he is a person interested. The learned counsel further contended that the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S.30 of the Act in order that the District Court would determine the persons to whom the compensation is payable. This reference is different from the reference under S.18 of the Act, for under the latter provision, any person interested who has not accepted the award, may by written application to the Collector, require the matter to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection to be the measurement of the land or the amount of the compensation among the persons interested. When a reference under S.18 is made, it is compulsory to the District Court to cause a notice to be served on the applicant as well as on all the persons interested in the objection, except such of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded. The Court is bound while giving this notice, to specify the date on which it will proceed to determine the objection. Now, according to the learned counsel, if in a reference under S.18, the object of which is only the determination of the measurement of the acquired land or the amount of the compensation to be paid, the Court is bound to give notice to all the persons interested in the objection, even if some of them were not, before the Collector, there is no reason whatsoever to close the doors of the Court to a person who claims to have a right or interest in the acquired land. but was not before the Collector, in a reference made under S.30. In fact S.30 provides for a reference in two cases, one being a reference of any dispute as regards the apportionment of the compensation awarded among the parties who were before the Collector, and the next being in respect of a dispute as regards the persons to whom the compensation or any part thereof is payable. In a reference of the second type, there is no reason whatsoever to close the doors of the Court to a person who claims to have a right or interest in the acquired land and, therefore, has a claim to, at least part of the awarded compensation. He placed reliance in support of this submission on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Babulal Mehtar v. Fakira Mehtar, AIR 1985 Pat 249 and 'Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra Singh, AIR 1967 pat 243, as well as on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 'Bagh Singh v. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar, AIR 1984 Punj and Har 177 The learned counsel finally contended that the view taken by the learned District Judge should not be affirmed, for it will give unnecessarily cause to multiplicity of proceedings.