RABINDRA KUMAR BABU Vs. S K BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with his three brothers, the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the sole and absolute owners of a portion of premises No. 23 and 23/1, Chhatawala Gulli Lane, Calcutta. On or about 15th August, 1946 the petitioner along with the said respondents leased out the said premises to one Nalini Ranjan Basu. On or about 7th August, 1952 the petitioner entered into an agreement for lease of the said premises with Messrs. Karnani Properties Ltd. , a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, for a period of 99 years. Pursuant to the terms of the said lease which was executed on the 1st May, 1953 Messrs. Karnani Properties Ltd. , went into possession. On or about 30th August, 1955 notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for compulsory acquisition of the said property. The acquisition was for purposes of the Calcutta Improvement Trust for the implementation of scheme No. LXVI in Ward No. 40 of the Corporation of Calcutta. Sometime in July, 1955 a declaration was published under section 6 of the said Act. Thereafter in July, 1956 the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 submitted their respective claims relating to the compensation payable in respect of the said premises. Various other persons filed their respective claims for compensation, as persons interested in the compensation money. The said Karnani Properties Ltd. , as lessees filed a claim for the refund of about Rs. 75,000/- by way of refund of the premium paid by the company in respect of the lease. There were other claims filed in respect of mortgages and charges. The Land Acquisition Collector also received information about the existence of various encumbrances, attachments and charges, including the claim of the Corporation of Calcutta in respect of arrears of rates and taxes. On or about 5th November, 1958 the respondent No. 1, the First Land Acquisition Collector, who was dealing with the matter, made his award under section 11 of the said Act. A copy of the said award is annexed to the petition and make as Ex. "a". The award shows that the total sum allowed was Rs. 6,24,769-44 np. Next under the heading, "apportionment of the amount of compensation", has been set out the names of the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, together with a long list of names of persons interested, together with the nature of their interest. The next heading is "amount payable to each", but under this there is only a single entry of Rs. 4,27,769-44 np. together with Rs. 750/- on account of water and drainage connection.

(2.) ON or about 10th November, 1958 the petitioner received a notice under section 12 (2) of the said Act, dated the 7th November, 1958 in which it was stated that the petitioner had been treated as a person interested and an award had been made on the 5th November, 1958 under section 11 of the said Act, and the sum payable to him was Rs. 4,27,769-44 np. Pursuant to this notice the petitioner asked for the payment of the amount mentioned in the notice, or at least 80 per cent of it. On the 2nd January, 1959 the Land. Acquisition Collector intimated to the lawyer of the petitioner that a joint award had been made for Rs. 4,27,769-44 np. in favour of all the owners lessee, mortgagee, decree-holders and other claimants and also for a sum of Rs. 750/- in favour of the owners and lessee. It was further intimated that the entire amount of the award less the Corporation taxes amounting to be Rs. 8,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as security pending possession of structures, had been remitted by the Collector to the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal as a deposit under section 31 (2) of the said Act. It was pointed out that through oversight it was not mentioned in the notice under section 12 (2) that the award was a joint one. The petitioner was asked to move the President, C. I. Tribunal and to take such steps as he thought proper and that the Land Acquisition Collector's office had nothing further to do in the matter. Thereafter on the 13th of January, 1959 this rule was issued. The point that arises in this application is a very short one. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the Land Acquisition Collector, in making an award under section 11 of the said Act, failed to comply with his statutory duties as prescribed in section 11. In particular, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to make an apportionment of the compensation money among all the persons known or believed by him to be interested in the land. He argues that it is the statutory duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to make such apportionment, and without making such an apportionment it was not competent for the Land Acquisition Collector to make a deposit of the compensation money with the C. I. Tribunal under section 31 (2) of the Act. In order to decide this point it will be necessary to consider some of the provisions of the said Act. We might begin with section 9 of the Act, under which the Collector causes public notice to be given to persons interested, to the effect that Government intended to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such lands may be made to the Land Acquisition Collector. Such notice shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or through their agent before the Collector and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land, and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests. The Collector may, in any case, require such statements to be made in writing and signed by the parties or their agents. Under section 10, the Collector may require any such person to make, or deliver to him, a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every other persons possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co-proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, together with the nature of such interests and other particulars Every person required to make or deliver such a statement shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. I now come to section 11, under which the award was made. That section runs as follows:

(3.) THE next section to be considered is section 18. That section lays down that any person interested, who has not accepted the award, may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The next relevant section is section 29. That section lays down that where there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment. We next come to section 30, which lays down that when the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. Finally, we come to section 31. Under sub-section (1) of section 31 the Collector on making an award under section 11 shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto, according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section, which runs as follows:-