MADHAORAO Vs. YESHWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition act by Madhaorao is against the award of Third Additional District Judge, indore, in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The appeal is mainly directed against the legality of the apportionment of the compensation and does not concern itself with the quantum of compensation or the extent of area acquired.

(2.) THE property known as "waghmare Bada" was acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at rs. 30,300 for the entire property which included Inam lands, a building, a well, some hutments and trees. We are here only concerned with a dispute as to apportionment of the compensation in respect of the Inam lands and the building. Madhaorao, appellant did not accept the compensation fixed by the land Acquisition Officer and applied to him to make a reference under section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation by the Court. The land Acquisition Officer while referring to the Court under section 18 (1) of the Act as regards the dispute as to compensation, also referred the dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation between Madhaorao, Balkrishnarao and Gopalrao. As Balkrishnarao died, his interest was represented by his legal representatives, Yeshwant and Lilabai. It may be stated that neither Balkrishnarao nor Gopalrao had separately applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for a reference to be made as regards either the apportionment of the compensation or adequacy of the amount fixed. Ramchandrarao, who is brother of the present appellant Madhaorao, neither participated in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer nor made any application for a reference to be made to a civil Court for apportionment of the compensation. The following genealogical tree will explain the relationship of the claimants with Madhaorao.

(3.) ALL the claimant-respondents including Ramchandrarao appeared before the Additional District Judge and disputed the quantum of compensation and claimed apportionment. Though the name of Balkrishnarao appears in the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, there is no mention of Ramchandrarao's name as a claimant for apportionment. The Additional District judge, Indore, permitted Ramchandrarao to be joined as a party to the proceedings. Madhaorao appellant had challenged the legality of this order before the High Court in a revision. The High Court dismissed the revision holding that Madhaorao would have the right to come up in appeal against the tenability of the claim of Ramchandrarao and that it was not proper to adjudicate upon the rights of Ramchandrarao in the revision as they were being considered by the Additional District Judge. The High Court, therefore, left the matter open and it is now contended by Madhaorao that Ramchandrarao is precluded from laying any claims to the compensation because he had not applied to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to Court under section 18 of the Act. He could not be permitted to be joined as a party before the Additional District Judge in reference for the first time.