BASIRUDDIN Vs. COLLECTOR OF SUNDERGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners and (are?) the recorded tenants of about 103 acres of land in Mouza Liploi, P. S. Raj -Gangpur in the district of Sundergarh. For the purpose of starting a cement factory. Government acquired about 70 acres out of plots 421 and 83/735 belonging to the petitioners, under the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act 18 of 1948) and published a Notification to that effect under Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioners objected to the acquisition and filed their statement under Section 6 of the Act. Their case was that they purchased these lands by an oral sale in their favour made by one Budhu Kumbhar, father of opposite parties 2 and 3 and the father -in -law of opposite party 4 and that they were recorded as tenants in the Record of Rights prepared in the year 1932 -33. It appears that on 12 -2 -1951 the opposite parties 2 to 4 filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Collector claiming compensation in respect of these lands on the ground that they were in possession. It would thus appear that there were rival claimants. But the Collector, without notice t9 the petitioners, held an enquiry and submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Sundergarh, on 6th August 1951, recommending that the opposite parties were entitled to receive the compensation fixed. On 9th August 1951 the District Magistrate passed orders accepting the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners complained that they had no notice of the enquiry held by the Land Acquisition Collector and that the procedure adopted by that Officer was improper and not in consonance with the requirements of the Act. On 3rd September 1951 they filed an application before the District Magistrate praying that a fresh enquiry be held and that the matter be submitted to the State Government for adjudication by an arbitrator as laid down in Section 7 of the Act. That application was rejected by the District Magistrate who confirmed his earlier order dated 9th August 1951 directing compensation to be paid to opposite parties 2 to 4. It is against this order that the petitioners have now come up with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE Act provides that any person interested in any land acquired by Government may file his objection before a competent authority and such authority may, after such enquiry as it thinks tit, either dismiss the objection or release the land from acquisition. Section 7 of the Act provides the machinery for determining compensation and says :

(3.) RULE 5 lays down how the enquiry into the objections is to be held and says that the competent authority shall proceed to enquire into the objections, if any, which any person interested has stated pursuant to notice given under Rule 4 and shall make a record in writing of the true area of the land, the compensation which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the land, and the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom or whose claims, he has information whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. Rule 6 says that if the person or persons agree to accept the compensation offered by the competent authority, or if there be any dispute as to the right to receive compensation in whole or in part, the competent authority shall deposit the amount of compensation as Revenue Deposit in his favour, and refer the case to Government as provided in Rule 9 for adjudication by the arbitrator. Rule 9 lays down that where no agreement is reached, the competent authority shall submit a report to the State Government stating the names of the persons whom he has reasons to think to be interested in such lands and the interests in such lands which he considers as entitled to compensation: If the objection be to the interests entitled to compensation the grounds on which such interests were deter -mined shall also be stated. These particulars required to be stated in the report submitted by the competent authority, indicate that the competent authority is not the authority empowered to decide disputes relating to the rival interests in the land. Rule 10 lays down that the State Government shall thereupon (that is to say, after the receipt of the report mentioned in Rule 9) appoint an arbitrator under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 7 of the Act'. The language of Rule 10 therefore makes it clear that the Act contemplated the appointment of an arbitrator where there are persons claiming rival interests in the land. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector has overlooked Rr. 6 and 7 of the Rules framed by the State Government, in directing payment of compensation to opposite parties 2 to 4. He had no jurisdiction to decide that the opposite parties 2 to 4 had acquired a prescriptive title to the lands acquired and he should have reported the matter to the State Government, under Rule 9, and directed the amount of compensation to be deposited as a Revenue Deposit pending adjudication by the arbitrator.