STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM SWAROOP DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO houses bearing Municipal Nos. 9/378 (a) and 9/380 popularly known as Bhutiya-ka-asthal and Naya Temple situated in Kota were acquired by the State of Rajasthan under the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') in connection with the construction of Chambal Canal Barrage. Ram Swaroop Dass (defendant) claimed compensation for the acquisition of the said properties. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed the claim of Ramswaroop Dass and by his award dated 25 October, 1956, fixed the amount of compensation payable to Ramswaroop Dass as Rs. 16,499/ -. Thereafter the Devasthan Department of the Government of Rajasthan made an application to the Land Acquisition Officer that the compensation was payable to the Department and, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Court for determination of the question as to the person to whom the compensation is payable under sec. 18 of the Act. The District Judge, Kota, by his order dated May 23, 1960, in Civil Miscellaneous case No. 29 of 1958 (Devasthan Department vs. Ramswroop) held that Ram Swaroop Dass is not the person entitled to receive compensation on account of acquisition of the property in dispute and further that the compensation should be paid to the Devasthan Department as trustee. At this stage, it may be stated that Ram Swaroop Dass had already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 8,250/- out of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer-Consequently, the State of Rajasthan served a notice upon Ram Swaroop Dass, who will hereinafter be referred to as the "defendant", for refunding the amount of Rs. 8,250/- along with interest at 6% per eunum. total Rs. 10,368/- and since he did not do so, the State of Rajasthan filed the present suit in the court of District Judge, Kota praying that a decree for Rs. 10,368/- be awarded in its favour against the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the order of the District Judge, Kota, dated May 23, 1960 was without jurisdiction and consequently null and void and, therefore, he was not liable to refund any amount out of the compensation paid to him.

(2.) THE learned Judge framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties : (1) Whether the judgment of the District Judge May 23, 1960 on reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being without jurisdiction is nullity ? (2) Whether the plantiff ( State) obtained the judgment in reference by fraud as enumerated in para No. . . . . . . of the written statement. (3) Whether the plaintiff being the acquiring authority of the properties described in Item No 1 of the plaint, estopped in claiming the award amount thereof. Whether the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed on that account ? (4) Whether the defendant is entitled to receive from the plaintiff Rs. 8,249/- as also interest at the rate of 6% per annum on this amount ? (5) Relief.

(3.) THE controversy in this case centres round the competence of the Devasthan Department of the State of Rajasthan to file an application under sec. 18 of the Act. THE contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate is that the Devasthan Department (which will here in after to as 'the Department') was a 'person interested' who had not accepted the award.