KANIKA HALDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a land acquisition Reference case under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The occupancy tenant of the land which was acquired is the appellant. The ex-landlords, that is, the landlords before the vesting of the estate as well as the State of Bihar are the respondents. A notification under Section 4 and a 'declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,' 1894, (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) were issued in respect of 3.396 acres with a jama of Rs. 36-4-0 in plot No. 3377 under tauzi No. 2698 in the district of Monghyr. The present tenant appellant filed her claim before the Collector and on the 25th March, 1955, an award was made under Section 11 of the Act determining the amount of compensation. Since there was some dispute about the apportionment of compensation, a reference was made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act. We have looked to the original reference and found that the name of ex-landlords were not mentioned in that reference. But it appears from Ext. 1, a certified copy of the application which was filed by some of the ex-landlords before the Collector on the 31st of March, 1955, that they had asked notice to he given to all the ex-landlords and for that purpose process fee of Rs. 3 was attached to that petition. Subsequent to that, on the 3rd of May, 1955, the reference was made by the Collector under Section 30, yet the name of the ex-landlords did not appear in that. One batch of the ex-landlords, that is, the Singhs made ah application on the 10th of April, 1957, before 'the Court where the reference was pending to he added as parties, and an order was passed by it on the 29th April, 1957, for bringing them on record as parties. A similar application from another set of ex-fandlords. the Chaudharis, who had 8 annas interest, was made on the 17th of December. 1956, for the same purpose of being added as parties to the pending reference, but no order was passed on that application till the reference case was disposed of and the decree was drawn up, subsequent to which the notice of the Court was drawn to their previous application, and on the 11th of September, 1958, the decree was amended and they were included in the decree as entitled to receive a portion of the compensation. The State of Eihar was already before the reference Court as the reference appears to have been made at their instance by the Collector.

(2.) By, the judgment passed on the 8th of July, 1957, in a number of reference cases, the particular reference case No. 33 of 1956 out of which the present appeal arises was disposed of The tenant, Srimati Kanika Haldar, contended before the reference Court that she was entitled to the entire compensation money as awarded by the Collector except the portion that may be payable to the landlords on the basis of capitalisation of the cash rent that was determined under Section 40B of the Bihar Tenancy Act in respect of the rent of the trees standing on the land in question. Admittedly there were 116 trees on this land and a proceeding under Section 40B of the Tenancy Act ended in commuting that rent of trees at Rs. 36-4-0 per year. The land had been described as bhaoli in the settlement papers. The ex-landlords contend that they were entitled in addition to the capitalised amount of the cash rent for the trees, a portion of the total compensation in proportion to what they were entitled to get by way of bhaoli rent from the land. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the ex-landlords as well as the tenants were entitled to get the compensation, the former on the capitalised value of the rent that was payable to them for the land which was acquired. IK his view the land still continued to be bhauli and the landlords were entitled to get 9/11th share out of the compensation fixed under the award. It is against this that the tenant has come in appeal. We should also mention here that the learned District Judge also took the view that the land should be deemed to have vested in the Government in August 1954 under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and, therefore, the ex-proprietors and not the State of Bihar were entitled to get the landlords' share out of the compensation. The State of Bihar had preferred an independent appeal out of this judgment, obviously appertaining to their claim to receive a part of the compensation, as First Appeal No. 15 of 1958 on the 2nd of January, 1958, but that was withdrawn on the 23rd of December, 1963. The State entered appearance in pursuance of a notice in the present appeal on the 15th January, 1960.

(3.) The main point to be considered in, this appeal as canvassed by learned counsel for the tenant-appellant is whether the ex-landlords whose estate vested in August 1954, can be entitled to receive any part of the compensation awarded under Section 11 for acquisition of the occupancy holding, on the 25th March, 1955. After the vesting of the estate, all interest of the ex-proprietors came to an end and the State became entitled to rent. Only such benefits that had been saved by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act could be retained by the proprietors. The right to realise rent came to an end on the vesting of the estate, Therefore, by the date the award was made determining the compensation payable for the land, the ex-proprietors, that is, respondents second party, had ceased to be landlords or proprietors in respect of this land, and as such, they cannot be entitled to receive anything in lieu of future rent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, urged that the land had vested under the Land Acquisition Act in the Government long prior to the date on which the estate vested, and, therefore, the title to receive compensation as landlords still has to be determined with reference to such date. On the face of it the argument is valid but on scrutiny if. has no substance as far as the present case is concerned. Section 16 of the Act provides that after the award is made the Collector can take possession of the land, and it is with effect from that date the possession is taken, the land will vest in the Government. Section 17(1) says that in a case of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector may lake possession of land even before the award is made, fifteen days after the notice under Section 9 was served. Ext. 3 on which learned counsel very much relied is a letter from the Director of Land Acquisitions, Bihar, dated the 3rd May, 1950, to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, in which he stated that the Government had been pleased to authorise the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) under Section 17(1) of the Act to lake immediate possession of such portions of the lands as are waste and arable. Assuming that there was such a direction as contemplated under Section 17(1) by the Government, there is nothing to show that in pursuance of such direction the Collector had taken possession of this land before the award was made. The vesting of title of the land in the Slate Government will follow the taking of such possession either under Section 16 or under Section 17. Learned Counsel's argument was that before the land acquisition proceedings were started and the notification was made under Section 4 of the Act this land had already been in possession of the military personnel during the last war, and thereafter in the possession of the Eastern Railway. The land acquisition proceedings were commenced at the instance of the railway authorities because it was required for them, inasmuch as they were already in possession there was no need of taking any formal possession by the Collector under Section 17(1) or even under Section 16. This contention has no substance at all. Even the letter on which learned Counsel relied (Ext. 3) clearly shows that the Government wanted to take such possession in spite of the fact that the railway for whom the acquisition was made, was already in possession. In absence of any evidence that the Collector had taken possession under Section 17(1) before the award was made, it cannot be held that the land had vested in the Government before the 25th March, 1955, when the award was made under Section 11 of the Act. It is not necessary to find out if actually, on any date subsequent to the award possession was taken under Section 16, because such a date will necessarily be much after the vesting of the estate under the Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that by the time the award was made and before the land vested in the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, the ex-proprietors had lost all their interest in this land after the vesting of their estate in August 1954 in the Stale Government. In that view, they cannot be entitled to anything out of the compensation.