GOPAL SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts of the case are sufficiently reflected in the judgment under appeal. Here suffice it to note that the appellant's claim under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) for compensation as a tenant has been negatived by the District Court (Additional District Judge, Ludhiana) primarily on the ground that there was no valid lease deed in his favour. The land concededly belonged to Shivala (Mandir) Masani Karmi. Though initially the appellant had failed to implead his landlord, i.e. the Mandir or its trustees as parties to the litigation, yet as a result of the application dated March 31, 1978 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he impleaded them as parties to the reference. In the light of the contentions raised by the parties, the Court put them to trial on the following issues :

(2.) During the course of hearing before me, Mr. Midha, learned counsel for the appellant, raised amongst others, the following contentions which do not appear to have been adverted to by the lower Court while deciding the case :-

(3.) So far as the claim of the appellant for apportionment of sharing of the compensation with the real owner or his landlord is concerned, the same does not appear to be well justified for the short reason that no such claim was putforth before the Collector nor the latter made any such reference to the Court. By now it is fairly well settled that jurisdiction of the Courts under the Act is a special one and strictly limited by the terms of sections 18, 20 and 31 of the same. See Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secretary of State, 1930 AIR(PC) 64. In that view of the matter, the trustees of the Mandir were not all a necessary party and were not required to be impleaded as parties as a result of the application filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. At the same time, appellant's right to a reference is not taken away merely because compensation has been paid to the Mandir or its trustees. By no stretch of imagination the appellant who was a cultivator of the land in question and claims to have effected a number of other improve efficients on the same can be held to be a person not interested" as envisaged by section 18 of the Act. Further, under section 23 of the Act, the Court awards compensation not market value, though market value is one of the factors to be taken into consideration. The scheme of the Act, i.e. preamble and various sections of the Act, clearly indicate that compensation has to be paid to a person interested. Therefore, in spite of the fact that some compensation has been paid to the Mandir or its trustees, does not deprive the appellant of the right to claim compnensation, in his own right if he is otherwise able to establish his claim. The Mandir or the trustees, i.e., the real owner would of course not be entitled to anything more than what has been paid to them for having accepted the award. Similarly the other stand of the appellant's counsel cannot lightly be brushed aside. In Vallabhdas Naranji Khot of Kanjur v. The Development Officer, Bandra,1929 50 CalLJ 45, their Lordships of the Privy Council have, in matters of payment of compensation under the Act, drawn a clear distinction between the claims of a mere trespasser" as contra distinguished from possession under "any bona fide title or claim of title". They firmly ruled that there is no absolute rule of law in India that whatever is affixed or built on the soil becomes a part of it and is subjected to the same right of the property as the soil itself. This was so said in the context where the Government had entered into possession of a particular piece of land and erected buildings thereupon before the necessary declaration under section 6 of the Act. The argument raised on behalf of the owner-claimant was that since the buildings had been constructed prior to the issuance of the necessary declaration under the Act. the same had become the claimant's property and he was entitled to the value of the land in the state which, it then was i.e. to say that the buildings on it. While rejecting the claim their Lordships opined thus: