SK ABED BAKSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -After the earlier writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy the petitioner has filed an application under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector seeking a reference for apportionment. It is contended that the Collector instead of making the reference purporting to disburse the amount.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Act provides for two classes of reference to the Court, one relating to assessment of compensation, the other relating to apportionment, as was held in Taylor v. Collector of Purnea ILR 14 Cal. 423. Once the award has become final the assessment of compensation comes to end. The duty of the Collector in case of dispute as to the relative rights of the persons together entitled to the money is to place the money under the control of the Court and the parties then can proceed to litigate for determining the respective rights and title to the property and then to the respective shares. It was so held in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao reported in 26 CWN 713 (PC).

(3.) Section 29 prescribes that where there are several persons interested, if such person agree to the apportionment of compensation, the particular of such apportioinment shall be specified in the award and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of correctness of the apportionment. Thus only in case of agreement between the persons the Collector may decide the question of apportionment. Section 29 postulate a decision when there is no dispute between the persons and who agree to the apportionment.