ASHER ALI Vs. SUKHNA SEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law for determination in this appeal is whether a person claiming a portion of the compensa-tion awarded by the Collector in land ac-quisition proceedings under the Land Ac-quisition Act of 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is entitled to file a civil suit to establish his claim.

(2.) The facts of the case as far as material for determination of this question are as follows. A plot of land measuring 3 kathas was acquired by the Government for constru-ction of National Highway. The plot be-longed to late Sanaton Seikh who died leaving two sons, namely, Gangar Seikh and Panimal Seikh Gangar Seikh and Panimal Seikh also died. The successors of each one of them had 50% interest in the said land. The acquisition compensation was determined by the Collector at Rs. 10,143.00. The whole of the amount of compensation was paid by the Collector to defendants 4 and 5 who were the successors of one of the sons of late Sanaton Seikh on 22-7-67 on furnishing of an indem-nity bond by them, despite protest from the successors of the other son Gangar Saikh. It appears that the successors of Gangar Seikh who later filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal made repeated demands before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta for payment of half share of compensation to them. No action having been taken in that regard a suit was filed for recovery of their share of compensation against the State of Assam, Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Acqui-sition Officer and the successors of late Pani-mal Seikh. The suit was contested by the private defendants (defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6) jointly on the ground inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable. Their further case was that the land acquired by the Government belonged to them and not to the plaintiffs.

(3.) The trial Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs had interest over half of the land acquired by the Government and accordingly they were entitled to half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. In regard to maintainability of the suit, the trial court observed that from documents marked as Exhibits 3 and 4, it was evident that the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs late Sukhna Seikh has made representation be-fore the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta for getting half share of the compensation award-ed for the land acquired by the Government. The representation was not finally disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer nor any refer-ence was made under Section 30 of the Act. It was further observed that it was not clear from the records whether any notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the plaintiffs or not. The trial court held that as the dispute between the parties was over apportionment of the amount of award given by the Collector, the civil suit was maintain-able. The trial court, in view of the aforesaid findings, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share of the amount of compensation and accordingly decreed the suit on contest for Rs. 5,071.50. The findings of the trial court on both the counts were affirmed by the learned District Judge. The decree was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 has filed the second appeal before this court.