http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
30/03/1965

BENCH:
SUBBARAO, K.
BENCH:
SUBBARAO, K.
SHAH, J.C.
BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:
1966 AIR 237 1965 SCR (3) 576
CITATOR INFO :
R 1968 SC 366 (13)
R 1980 SC 775 (11)

ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 11, 18, 30--Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950, s. 3--Award fixing compensation for land
acquired--Land Reform--Acquired land vesting in
State--State whether entitled to compensation under
award--Reference under s. 30 to decide claim of State
whether competent.

HEADNOTE:
The appellant owned certain lands in the State of Bihar in
respect of which proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act were started. Under s. 11 of the Act the Collector fixed
the area of the land to be acquired and the compensation
payable, and also apportioned the compensation between the
appellant and the members of the village community who had
claimed compensation for some. portions of the land. The
award was then filed under s. 12. The appellant and members
of the village community being dissatisfied asked the
Collector to make. references under s. 18 to the Court.
After the award was given but before possession under s. 16
of the Act was taken the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was
passed and by the operation of s.3 of the Act the
appellant’s land became vested in the State. On behalf of
the State an application was made to the Collector to make a
reference to the Court under s. 30 of the Act claiming that
the compensation under the award was payable to it as it had
acquired the appellant’s title to the land. The District
Court held that the compensation was not payable to the
State but, on appeal, the High Court held in favour of the
State. The appellant came to this Court with certificate.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the
Collector had no authority to refer the matter under s. 30
after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under s.
11; (2) since title to. compensation is derived solely from
and on the date of the award, the notification under s. 3
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act did not deprive the appellant
of his right to receive compensation; and (3) the State
Government was not ’a person interested within the meaning
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, and could not apply for a
reference. under s. 30.
HELD: Per Shah and Bachawat, JJ.--(i) There are two
provisions in the Act under which the Collector can make a
reference to the Court, namely, s. 18 and s. 30. The powers
under the two sections are distinct and may be invoked in
contingencies which do not overlap. A person shown in that
part. of the award which relates to apportionment of
compensation who is present either personally or through a
representative or on whom notice is issued under s. 12(2),
must, if he does not accept the award, apply to the
Collector to refer the matter to the Court under s. 18
within the time prescribed thereunder. But a person who has
not appeared in the acquisition proceedings before the
Collector may, if he is not served with notice of filing,
raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to
whom it is payable and apply to the Court for a reference
under s. 30, for determination of his right to
compensation which may have existed before the award, or
which may have devolved upon him since the award. For a
reference under s. 30 no period of limitation is prescribed.
[583E-584A]
577
(ii) It is not predicated of the exercise of the power
to make a reference under s. 30 that the Collector has not
apportioned the compensation money by his award. [584D]
Boregowda and Anr. v. Subbaramiah and Ors., A.I.R.
(1959) Mysore. 265, disapproved.
(iii.) The award made by the Collector under s. 11 is
not the source of the right to compensation. An award is
strictly speaking only an offer made by the Government to
the person interested in the land notified for acquisition;
the person interested is not bound to accept it and the
Government can also withdraw the acquisition under s. 48. It
is only when possession of the land has been taken by the
Government under s. 16 that the right of the owner of the
land is extinguished. Therefore the appellant’s contention
that title to compensation is derived solely from and on
the date of the award, could not be accepted. [584H-585C]
(iv), The liability of the Government under s. 31 to pay
compensation to the person entitled thereto under the award
does not imply t.hat only the persons to whom compensation
is directed to. be paid under the award may raise a dispute
under s. 30. The scheme of apportionment by the Collector
under s. 11 is conclusive only between the‘ Collector and
the persons interested and not among the persons interested.
Payment of compensation under s. 31 to the persons declared
in the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of
its liability to pay compensation leaving it open to the
claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference
under s. 30 or by a separate suit. [586B-F]
(v) Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act the title of the
appellant to the land notified for acquisition became vested
in the. State and therefore the right to compensation for
the land acquired devolved upon the. State. A dispute then
arose between the State Government and the appellant "as to
the persons to whom" compensation was payable. The State
had no right to the compensation payable for the land under
a title existing before the date of the award of the
Collector and no application could be made by it as a person
interested within the meaning of s. 18. But a dispute
between the appellant and the State as to their conflicting
claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which
could be referred under s. 30 of the Act to the. Court.
There is nothing in s. 30 which excludes a reference to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of
the owner of the land has since the award, devolved. [584G;
586A, G, H]
Promotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Addy, 11 Cal. L.J.
420, referred to.
Per Subba Rao, J.--(i) The Land Acquisition Officer
cannot make a reference under s. 30 of the Act in the matter
of apportionment of compensation after the award has been
made by him apportioning the compensation under s. 11 and
has been filed under s. 12.
The Land Acquisition Act discloses a well knit scheme in
the matter of making an award..The Land acquisition Officer
after issuing notice calling for objections decides on the
three matters prescribed in s. 11 i.e. the true area of the
land, the amount of compensation and the apportionment of
the compensation. Before making the apportionment he can
resort to any of the following three methods.
(i) to accept’ an agreed formula; (ii) to decide for
himself; and
578
(iii) to refer to the Court if he. thinks that the
decision of the Court is necessary. But once the award is
made, it becomes final and it can be reopened only in the
manner prescribed i.e. by way of a reference under s. 18 of
the Act.
It is not correct to say that on the above view a person
who acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos
or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy. Such
a person may ask for a reference under s. 18. He may apply
to be brought on record after the reference is made to the.
Court. He may proceed to the Civil Court to recover the
compensation from the persons who received it on the basis
of his title. On the other hand the contrary view will lead
to an incongruous position. It enables the Land
Acquisition Officer to reopen a final award in the teeth of
the express provisions of s. 12 of the Act. It further
enables him to make a reference without any period of
limitation and thus to disturb the rights finally settled by
the award. [580B-G]

JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 262 to 264
of 1964.
Appeals from the judgment and decrees dated January 5,
and January 22, 1959, and 24th November 1960 of the Patna
High Court in appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 401 of
1953, and 297 and 298 of 1954 respectively.
S.R. Ghosal and R.C. Prasad, for the appellant (in all the
appeals).
D.P. Singh, R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwala and M.K. Ramamurthi
for the respondent (in all the appeals).
SUBBA RAO. J. delivered a dissenting opinion. The Judgment
of SHAH, and BACHAWAT JJ. was delivered by SHAH J.
Subba Rao, J. I regret my inability to agree with brother
Shah, J., on one of the questions raised in the appeals,
namely, whether the Land Acquisition Officer can, after
making the award under s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, hereinafter called the Act, fixing the compensation
for the land acquired and apportioning the same among the
persons interested in the land, refer the question of
apportionment under s. 30 of the Act to the decision of the
Court. Shah, J., held he could; but, with great respect to
him, I take a different view.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
The facts are fully stated in the judgment of Shah, J.,
and they need not, therefore, be restated here.
The answer to the problem raised falls to be decided on
a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section
9 of the Act enjoins on the Collector to cause public notice
to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be
taken, stating that the Government intends to take
possession of the land’, and that claims to compensation for
all interests in such land may be made to him; under sub-s.
(2) thereof such notice shall state the particulars of the
land so needed and shall require persons interested in the
land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector
at a time and place therein mentioned and to state the
nature of their respective interests in the land and the
amount and, particulars of
579
their claims to compensation for such interests, and their
objections, if any, to the measurements made under s. 8.
Under s. 11, on the day fixed or on any other day to which
the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed
to make an enquiry and shall make an award under his hand
of (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation
which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land,
of whom, or of whose claims, he had information, whether or
not they have respectively appeared before him. Under s. 12,
"such award shall be filed in the Collector’s office and’
shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and
conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the
persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared
before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of
the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested.’’ The group of sections, viz, ss. 9
to 15, describes the subject-matter and the nature of the
enquiry to be held by the Collector and’ provides for the
making of the final award in respect of the said subject-
matter; ss.18 to 28 provide for reference to Court and the
procedure to be followed therein in respect thereof.
Sections 29 and 30 fall under part IV of the Act under the
heading "Apportionment of compensation". As the decision
mainly turns upon these provisions, it will be convenient to
read them in full.
Section 29. Particulars of apportionment to be
specified-Where there are several persons interested’, if
such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation,
the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in
the award, and as between such persons the award shall be
conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
Section 30. Dispute as to apportionment When the amount
of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any
dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any
part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such
dispute to the decision of the Court.
While s. 11 imposes a statutory duty on the Collector to
enquire in respect of the three matters mentioned therein,
ss. 29 and 30 deal with the manner of deciding the dispute
in respect of one of the said matters, viz., apportionment
of the compensation fixed; under s. 29, if the claimants
agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the agreed
particulars shall be specified in the award and the said
award is final as between them. It is manifest that this
agreement necessarily refers to the apportionment to be made
under s. 11 before the award is made, for the section in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
terms says that the agreed particulars shall be entered’ in
the award. If there is no such agreement, s. 30 comes into
play. It also refers to a stage after the compensation has
been settled and before the apportionment is made and
included in the award. If there was no agreed formula, the
Land Acquisition Officer has the discretion, presumably when
580
there is a complicated question, to refer the dispute in
respect of the apportionment to the Court. But he need not
do so if he thinks fit to decide the dispute for himself.
The Land Acquisition Act discloses a well knit scheme in
the matter of making an award. The Land Acquisition Officer,
after issuing notice calling for objections, decides on the
three matters prescribed in s. 11, i.e., the true area of
the land, the amount of compensation and the apportionment
of the compensation. Before making the apportionment of the
compensation he can resort to any of the following three
methods: (i) to accept an agreed formula; (ii) to decide for
himself; and (iii) to refer to the Court if he thinks that
the decision of the Court is necessary. But once the award
is made, it becomes final and it can be reopened only in the
manner prescribed, i.e., by way of a reference under s. 18
of the Act. This construction makes for the smooth working
of the provisions of the Act and does not lead to any
anomalies. It also does not affect the right of the
aggrieved parties to proceed in the manner prescribed by the
Act for getting the award vacated or modified’, as the case
may be. It is said that if this view be accepted, a person
who acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos
or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy. I do
not see any difficulty in that regard. Under s. 18 he may
ask for a reference. He may apply to be brought on record
after the reference is made to the Court. It may also be
that he may proceed in a civil Court to recover the
compensation from the persons who received’ it on the basis
of his title. On the other hand, the contrary view will lead
to an incongruous position. It enables the Land Acquisition
Officer to reopen a final award in the teeth of the express
provisions of s. 12 of the Act. It further enables him to
make a reference without any period of limitation and thus
to disturb the rights finally settled by the award. I,
therefore, hold that the Land Acquisition Officer cannot
make a reference under s. 30 of the Act in the matter of
apportionment of compensation after the award has been made
by him apportioning the compensation under s. 11 and’ has
been filed under s. 12 thereof.
During the course of the arguments it was suggested that
as the interest of Dr. Grant devolved on the Government it
may be held that the Government was in substance brought on
record in the place of Dr. Grant in the reference made under
s. 18 of the Act to the District Court. But the point was
not raised at any stage of the proceedings. Indeed no
application was filed in the District Court for bringing the
Government on record in the place of Dr. Grant. In the
circumstances I am not justified’ in permitting the
respondent to raise the said point for the first time before
this Court.
In the result, I set aside the decision of the High
Court and restore that of the District Court. The appellant
will have his costs throughout.
581
Shah, J. Dr. Gregor Hug Grant hereinafter called
’Dr. Grant’--was the proprietor of the Dumka Estate in the
District of Santhai Parganas in the State of Bihar. By a
notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
published on June 8, 1949 the Government of Bihar notified
for acquisition a larger area of land out of the estate of
Dr. Grant for establishing "an agricultural farm." The
Collector made on March 25, 1952 awards setting out the true
area of the land notified for acquisition, compensation
which in his opinion should’ be allowed for the land and
apportionment of the compensation among all the persons
known or believed to be interested in the land. The awards
were filed in the Collector’s office on the same day. In
respect of Plot No. 142, Rs. 575/14/were awarded by the
Collector as compensation in equal shares to Dr. Grant and
the members of the village community, who had also made a
claim for compensation. In respect of Plot No. 68, the
Collector awarded Rs. 294/6/- as compensation. In respect of
acquisition of an area admeasuring 88.91 acres consisting of
several plots, the Collector awarded Rs. 1,64,446/5/10 as
compensation and directed apportionment in the manner set
out in the award.
On May 5, 1952 Dr. Grant applied to the Collector under
s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the three matters be
referred for determination by the Court of the amount of
compensation payable to the owners. Similar applications
were filed in respect of Plot Nos. 68 & 142 by the members
of the village community. In consequence of a notification
issued under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950
the Dumka Estate vested on May 22, 1952 in the State of
Bihar. In exercise of the power under s. 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Government of Bihar took over
possession on August 21, 1952 of the Lands notified for
acquisition. On October 15, 1952 the Government Pleader
submitted a petition before the Collector claiming that the
compensation money awarded to Dr. Grant had since the
publication of the notification under the Bihar Land Reforms
Act become payable to the State Government, and the dispute
between Dr. Grant and the State Government regarding the
right to payment may be referred to the Court under s. 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act.
The Collector made on November 5, 1952 three references
to the District Court, Santhai Parganas. Two out of those
references were made in exercise of powers under ss. 30 & 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, and the third under s. 30. The
District Judge by his order dated April 9, 1954 held that
the State of Bihar had no interest in the property notified
for acquisition when the award was filed before the
Collector under s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the
State could, lay no claim to the compensation money awarded.
The District Judge upheld the apportionment of compensation
between Dr. Grant and the village community and enhanced the
valuation of the land and directed that compensation at the
enhanced rate be awarded.
582
Against the order of the District Judge in the
references, three appeals Nos. 401 of 1953, 2c)7 of 1954 and
298 of 1954 were preferred by the State to the High Court of
Judicature at Patna. The High Court held that title of the
owner to the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
could not be extinguished under that Act till possession was
taken under s. 16 of the Act, and that since the title of
Dr. Grant in the land acquired stood statutorily vested in
the State by virtue of the notification issued under the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, he was not entitled to receive the
compensation money. In the view of the High Court, title to
the compensation money had vested in the State Government
before possession was obtained by the State Government under
s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that it was open to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
the Collector, on a dispute raised by the State about the
right to receive the compensation money, to make a reference
to the Court under s. 30 of the Act. With certificate
granted by the High Court, these three appeals have been
preferred by Dr. Grant.
Three contentions have been urged in support of the
appeals: (1) the Collector had no authority to refer the
matter under s. 30 after he had apportioned the amount of
compensation under s. 11 (2) since title to compensation is
derived solely from and on the date of the award, the
notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act did
not deprive Dr. Grant of his right to receive compensation,
and (3) the State Government was not "a person interested"
within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, and could
not apply for a reference under s. 30.
After a notification is issued under s. 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government may acquire the
land notified in the manner set out in ss. 7 to 16. Section
9 provides for an enquiry into the area of the land, into
compensation which is payable and apportionment of
compensation. The Collector is by s. 11 authorised to make
an award setting out the true area of the land, the
compensation which, in his opinion, should be allowed for
the land and the apportionment of the said compensation
among all the persons known or believed to be interested in
the land, or of whose claims, he has information, whether
or not they have respectively appeared before him. The award
when filed in the Collector’s office becomes final and
conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons
interested whether they have respectively appeared before
the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land
and the apportionment of compensation among the persons
interested. The land vests absolutely in the Government,
free from all encumbrances when possession is taken by the
Collector under s. 16. By s. 17 authority is conferred upon
the Collector, when in cases of urgency the appropriate
Government so directs, to take possession of waste or arable
land even before making an award. Section 48 authorises the
Government to withdraw from the acquisition any land of
which possession has not been taken.
583
By s. 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer to the District
Court for determination, objections as to the measurement of
the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom
it is payable, or the apportionment thereof among the
persons interested. Part IV deals with apportionment of
compensation. If the persons interested agree in the
apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such
apportionment shall be specified in the award (s. 29): if
there be no such agreement, the Collector may, if a dispute
arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any
part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof is payable, refer such dispute under s. 30 for
decision by the Court. Part V of the Act which contains ss.
31 to 34 deals with payment of compensation. Under s. 31 the
Collector has to tender payment of the compensation awarded
by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according
to the award. By the third proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 31,
liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any
part of the compensation awarded under the Act, to pay the
same to the person lawfully entitled thereto, is not
affected. Sections 32 & 33 deal with investment of money
deposited in respect of land belonging to persons
incompetent to alienate the land and’ in other cases, but
with these we are not concerned. Section 34 obliges the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Collector to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per
annum if compensation is not paid or deposited on or before
taking possession of the land from the time of taking
possession until it is so paid or deposited’.
There are two provisions ss. 18(1) and 30 which invest
the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as
to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to
whom it is payable. By sub-s. (1) of s. 18 the Collector is
enjoined to refer a dispute as to apportionment, or as to
title to receive compensation, on the application within the
time prescribed’ by sub-s. (2) of that section of a person
interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30
authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after
compensation is settled under s. 11, any dispute arising as
to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to
the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable.
A person shown in that part of the award which relates to
apportionment of compensation, who is present either
personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice
is served under sub-s. (2) of s. 12, must, if he does not
accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time
prescribed under s. 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court.
But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition
proceeding before the Collector may, if he is not served
with notice of the filing, raise a dispute as to
apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable,
and apply to the Court for a reference under s. 30, for
determination of his right to compensation which may have
existed before the award, or which may have develoved upon
him since the award. Whereas under s. 18 an application made
to the Collector must be made within the period prescribed
by sub-s.(2) cl. (b), there is no such period
584
prescribed under s. 30. Again under s. 18 the Collector is
bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person
interested. The Collector is under s. 30 not enjoined to
make a reference: he may relegate the person raising a
dispute as to apportionment, or as to the person to whom
compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit
and pay the compensation in the manner declared. by his
award.
We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Mysore
High Court in Boregowda and another v. Subbaramiah and
others
that if the Collector has made apportionment of the
compensation money by his award his power to refer a dispute
under s. 30 cannot be exercised. Clause (iii) of s. 11
enjoins the Collector to apportion the compensation money
among persons known or believed to be interested in the
land: he has’ no discretion in the matter. Exercise of the
power under s. 30 to refer the dispute relating to
apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable is,
it is true, discretionary: the Collector may, but is not
bound to exercise that power. It is however not predicated
of the exercise of that power that the Collector has not
apportioned the compensation money by his award. We are also
unable to agree with the Mysore High Court that the power
under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be exercised
on a motion within the period prescribed by s. 18(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act. In our judgment the powers exercisable
by the Collector under s. 18(1) and under s. 30 are distinct
and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap.
By virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar
Land Reforms Act the right of Dr. Grant vested in the State
of Bihar. On March 25, 1952 when the Collector made an award
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
under s. 11, the only persons interested in the award were
Dr. Grant and the members of the village community, but the
title of Dr. Grant in the land notified for acquisition
stood, by operation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
transferred as from May 22, 1952 to the State of Bihar. A
dispute then arose between the State Government and Dr.
Grant "as to the persons whom" compensation was payable. The
State had no right to the compensation payable for the land
under a title existing before the date of the award of the
Collector, and no application for reference could be made by
the State, as a person interested within the meaning of s.
18(1). The title of the State to receive compensation arose
only when in consequence of the notification under s. 3 of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of Dr. Grant to the
Estate was divested.
An award by the Collector is strictly speaking an offer
made to the person interested in the land notified for
acquisition: the latter may accept the offer, but is not
bound to accept it. He may ask for a reference to the Court
for adjudication of his claim for adequate compensation. The
person interested may even accept
(1)A.I.R. 1959 Mysore 265.
585
the compensation under protest as to the sufficiency of the
amount and ask for a reference. It is also open to the
Government, even after the award is made, but before
possession is taken, to withdraw from acquisition of any
land in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 48 of the
Land Acquisition Act. It is therefore not the award of the
Collector which is the source of the right to compensation:
the award quantifies the offer of the appropriate
Government, which is made because the Government has taken
over, or intends to take the land of the owner under the
authority conferred by the Land Acquisition Act. In Serju
Prasad Sahu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others(1) it
was observed by this Court in considering the scheme of the
Act that the right of the owner of the land is extinguished
when Government takes possession of the land after an award
of compensation is made. This is also supported by the
scheme of the Act. Interest is made payable under s. 28 on
the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Court
from the date on which the Collector had taken possession.
Similarly under s. 34 interest is made payable on the
compensation from the date on which the possession is taken,
if the same be not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land.
The right of the State of Bihar arose on May 22, 1952
when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the
notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. There
is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which prohibits the
Collector from making a reference under s. 30 for
determination of the title of the person who has since the
date of the award acquired a right to the compensation. If
after a reference is made to the Court, the person
interested dies or his title devolves upon another person,
because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture,
compulsory winding up or other form of statutory transfer,
it would be open to the party upon whom the title has
devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom
the title has devolved could have prosecuted. In Promotha
Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Addy(2) it was held that a
reference made by the Collector under s. 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act at the instance of a proprietor of land may
be prosecuted by the purchaser of his rights after the award
at a revenue auction. If the right to prosecute a reference
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
by a person on whom the title of the person interested has
devolved be granted, there is no reason why the right to
claim a reference of a dispute about the person entitled to
compensation may not be exercised by the person on whom the
title has devolved since the date of the award.
The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all
disputes about the quantum of compensation must be decided
by resort to the procedure prescribed by the Act; it is also
intended that disputes about the rights of owners to
compensation being ancillary to the principal dispute should
be decided by the Court to which power is entrusted.
Jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf is not restricted
(1)A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1763.
(2) 11 Cal. L.J. 420.
586
to cases of apportionment, but extends to adjudication of
disputes as to the persons who are entitled’ to receive
compensation, and there is nothing in s. 30 which excludes a
reference to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on
whom the title of the owner of land has, since the award,
devolved.
It was strongly pressed that under s. 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to tender payment of
compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled’ thereto
according to the award and that implied that a right in the
amount of compensation arises to the person to whom
compensation is directed to be paid under the award, and
therefore the only persons who can raise a dispute under s.
30 are those whose names are set out in the award. This
contention stands refuted by the plain terms of s. 30. The
Collector is not authorised to decide finally the
conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount
of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the
acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of
compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, to
apportion the amount of compensation between the persons
known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or
of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they
have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by
the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the
persons interested in the amount of compensation: the award
is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons
interested and not among the persons interested. The
Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title
to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a
reference under s. 18 or under s. 30 or in a separate suit.
Payment of compensation therefore under s. 31 to the person
declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the
State of its liability to pay compensation (subject to any
modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant
to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under s.
30 or by a separate suit.
The dispute between the State of Bihar and Dr. Grant
has been expressly referred by the Collector to the Court
for decision. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of
Dr. Grant to the Land notified for acquisition became
vested’ in the State, and there fore the right to
compensation for the land acquired devolved upon the State.
A dispute between Dr. Grant and the State as to their
conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a
dispute which could be referred under s. 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act to the Court and was in fact referred to the
Court. We are unable to agree with counsel for Dr. Grant
that the reference made by the Collector under s. 30 was
incompetent, because the State was not interested in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
compensation money on the date when the award was made. The
right of the State of Bihar has undoubtedly arisen after the
award was made, but once the title which was originally
vested in Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred to the
State, it was open to the State to claim a reference, not
because the
587
State was a person interested’ in the compensation money
before the date of the award, but because of the right which
has arisen since the award was made.
We therefore dismiss the appeals with costs There will
be one hearing fee.
ORDER
Following the judgment of the majority, the appeals are
dismissed with costs. There will be one hearing fee.
588