PRABHU SINGH Vs. PYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals raise the question whether it is within the power of the Court in which money is deposited under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act to order trie distribution thereof or whether it is under a statutory obligation to direct that the money shall be invested in the purchase of other land or be laid out or invested in Government or other approved securities.

(2.) Two plots of land belonging to one Kallu, a proprietor of village Bassaidarapur of the Delhi Province, were acquired by Government and the Land Acquisition Tribunal constituted under the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, as extended to the Province of Delhi, made two awards, one on 31-3-1942 and the other on 30-3-1944, concerning the compensation which should be allowed in respect of the land. Kallu was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and requested that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The amount due to him was accordingly deposited in Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act of 1894. Several years later, i.e., on 10-4-1950 Kallu died leaving behind him a widow by the name of Shrimati Ram Piari. The widow applied that the amount of compensation due to her husband be paid to her. On 30-5-1951 and 13-7-1951 the collaterals of the deceased made two applications in which they prayed that the amount of compensation be not paid to Shrimati Bam Piari but that it be invested in the manner set out in Section 33, Land Acquisition Act and that only the income of the investment be paid to Ram Piari who is a widow and is entitled only to a life estate. The learned District Judge of Delhi in whose Court the money had been deposited came to the conclusion that the land in respect of which the money was deposited belonged exclusively to Kallu, that compensation in respect thereof was payable to him, that as he died before the money was actually paid to him the money devolved on his widow as his heir, and that the widow was at liberty to deal with it as she liked. In view of these findings the learned District Judge dismissed both the applications. The collaterals are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in appeal.

(3.) Mr. D. K. Kapur, who appears for the collaterals in the present case, contends that the amount of compensation which is lying in deposit With the Court on behalf of Kallu should be paid to his clients on the ground that if the land had not been acquired by Government and if Kallu had died as the owner of the said land, the widow would have taken possession thereof as a life tenant and that the land itself would have descended in due course to the collaterals as the next reversioners of the deceased. He considers it inequitable that a tenant for life should be allowed the entire compensation for a plot of land which she has no power to sell and prays that the money should be invested in the manner set out in Section 33 and that the widow should be allowed only the interest from the Investment.