DURGA DEVI Vs. COLLECTOR JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in the course of which 27 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land comprising of Khasra Nos. 559/310/M and 309 and a building thereon in village Naubad, Tehsil Jammu belonging to Wazir Bhagat Ram was acquired by the Government for for the Housing Department under Notifications RD 133 of 1960 dated 20 -6 -1960 and RD 9 of 1961 dated 31 -1 -1961 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively. The Collector Jammu made an award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28 -6 -1961 and fixed compensation at Rs. 102288.50 including Jabirana at the rate of 15% for the property mentioned above. The award was approved by the Government and the approval was communicated to the Collector on 21 -7 -1961. The property of Wazir Bhagat Ram was placed under the Court of Wards and Pt. Hardial Manager of Court of Wards received payment of the compensation for the property acquired by the Government. Shrimati Durga Devi mother of W. Bhagat Ram filed objections to the award and also made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2 -8 -1961 requesting the Collector to refer the matter to the court. In her objections she stated that the compensation was inadequate and that the land was worth Rs. ],0OO per marla and she claimed compensation for fruit trees at Rs. 80,00O. The Collector made a reference to the Court of District Judge. No objection was filed on behalf of the Court of Wards. But before the District Judge the Collector resisted the application of Mst. Durga Devi on the ground that she had no locus standi to file the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as she was not the person interested and that the compensation awarded was adequate. Various issues were raised before the District Judge and the important issue was whether Mst. Durga Devi, mother of W. Bhagat Ram was "person interested" as defined in the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Mst. Durga Devi is not the person interested" and therefore the reference made by the Collector is not competent. Mr. Durga Devi has appealed against the order of the District Judge.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellant that she being the mother of W. Bhagat Ram the owner of the property, received maintenance allowance out of the property belonging to W. Bhagat Ram which is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and therefore she is a person interested in the property. It is contended that as the maintence allowance will increase with the increase in the amount of compensation the appellant is the person interested" within the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under : -

(3.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether Mst. Durga Devi, mother of W. Bhagat Ram, the owner of the land, acquired by the Government is an interested person within the definition of the term given in the Land Acquisition Act. Under section 18 only a person interested is competent to make a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court whether or not the amount of compensation is adequate. It is not disputed that the land belonged to Wazir Asu and after his death W. Bhagat Ram inherited his entire property. It appears that the property inherited by W Bhagat Ram was placed under the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Court of Wards Act. The appellant received maintenance allowance from the property which was managed by the Court of Wards. As the appellant cannot claim any interest in the compensation awarded by the Collector in regard to the property acquired by the Government, she would not come within the category of "person interested" as defined in the Act. The appellant therefore was not competent to make an application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred to the Court for the determination of the amount of compensation. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that once reference is made by the Collector it was not open to the Court to go into the question whether the reference was valid or not. This contention is without any force. If the Collector makes a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act it is for the court to satisfy itself that the re -reference made by the Collector complies with the specified conditions so as to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the same In doing so the Court is not sitting in appeal or revision on the decision of the Collector. It is merely examining whether the reference made under the Act is one which is strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act. If the Court finds that the statutory conditions have not been complied with it is fully competent to hold that the reference is not maintainable. In this view we are supported by a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court reported as AIR 1955 Madras 23, Narayanappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, in which it has been held : -