STATE OF BIHAR Vs. G H GRANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been heard together. They arise out of two judgments of the District Judge of Santhal Pargana delivered by him in two references made to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 5-11-1952 on two petitions filed by the State of Bihar claiming that the amounts of compensation payable to the ex-proprietor of Dumka Estate, under which the lands in question had been situated and had subsequently been acquired by the Government of Bihar in village Phutabandh and Puma Dumka, had become payable to the State of Bihar, because the proprietary interest of Dr. G.H. Grant, the ex-proprietor, had vested in the State of Bihar on 22-5-1952 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

(2.) In one of these cases there was a reference under Section 18 also on the objections raised by the Village Community, but that was not pressed at the time of the hearing and the references have been dealt with by the learned District Judge under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act, and we are concerned in these appeals with that matter only.

(3.) It appears that the acquired land was taken possession of by the Collector under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21-8-1952. The award had been given by him under Section 11 of the said Act on 25-3-1952. The amount was in deposit and had not been withdrawn by Dr. G.H. Grant till 25-5-1952 when his interest as proprietor vested in the State Government, as already stated. The two references were made by the Deputy Commissioner on 5-11-1952 as mentioned above. It appears that on 15-10-1952 the Government Pleader of Dumka had submitted an opinion to the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas in which he said that as a dispute had arisen between the ex-landlord, Mr. Grant and the State Government regarding the compensation, the dispute should be referred to the Civil Court for decision under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that on the basis of this opinion of the Government Pleader, the Deputy Commissioner made the aforesaid references. It further appears that on 10-3-1953 the Additional Collector of Santhal Parganas filed a petition before the District Judge of Santral Parganas alleging that the estate had vested in the State Government on 22-5-1952 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, by which date the Collector had not taken possession of the land. Therefore, the amount of compensation had become payable to the State Government and not to Mr. Grant.