Decided on January 21,1960



- (1.) THESE two appeals have arisen out of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Howrah in cannot in with two land acquisition cases. It would appear from the judgment of the learned Judge that the Land Acquisition Collector of Howrah made some awards in two land acquisition cases, namely, L. A. Case No. 2/2 of 1944-45 and L. A. Case No. 2/3 of 1944-45 In favour of four persons jointly. These four persons were Karuna Sindlm Dhar, Anantalal Chunder, Pannalal Paramanik and Rajmohan Mukherjee. The awards do not make any mention about the shares of the parties and so the normal result would be that each of the above-mentioned four persons would be entitled to get the award monies to the extent of one-fourth share. Karuna Sindhu and Anantalal were not satisfied with the awards and they applied to the Collector for making a reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act Their case was that they were entitled to get the award amounts in their entirety and the other two awardees were not entitled to get anything. It is admitted that Pannalal and Rajmohan did not raise any objection to the award before the Collector. Evidently they accepted the awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector. They, however, entered appearance before the learned Land Acquisition Judge and contested the claim of the claimants. Their case before the learned Judge was that Rajmohan alone was entitled to receive the entire amounts of the awards. Evidence was adduced by the rival claimants before the Land Acquisition Judge and he came to the conclusion that the two claimants of the two cases had no title to the award amounts and Rajmohan Mukherjee was alone entitled to receive the amounts. In view of this finding the miscellaneous cases which arose out of the two references were dismissed by the learned Judge and he gave a further direction that the award monies would be paid to Rajmohan Mukherjee alone and not to the three other awardees. These two appeals were filed by the claimants of the court below. As they arose out of connected matters they were heard analogously and they were disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) MR. Ghosh who argued these appeals on behalf of the appellants submitted before us that he is not in a position to challenge that portion of the judgment of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in which the respective titles of the parties to the properties which were the subject-matter of acquisition have been discussed. He however, contended that it was not open to the learned Land Acquisition Judge to make a declaration that Rajmohan Mukherjee alone was entitled to receive the entire compensation money of the awards inasmuch as he had accepted the awards as made by the Collector and no reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the Collector at his instance. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that in making the joint awards in the names of four persons the Collector had virtually given a moiety share of the award amounts to the two claimants. By asking for a reference to the Land Acquisition Judge and by claiming the entire compensation amounts, the two claimants, who are appellants in this appeal, were merely claiming something in excess of what had been given to them by the Collector. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this excess claim of the appellants might have failed before the Land Acquisition Judge, but that failure would not entitle Rajmohan to get anything in excess of what had been given to him by the awards in the absence of a reference at his instance.
(3.) IN support of the above proposition of law Mr. Ghosh relied on certain previous decisions of this Court. One such case is reported in 12 C. W. N. 98 (1) (Gobinda Kumar Ray Chowdhury and ors. v. Debendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury and Ors. ). It has been held in that case that in a reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not open to the Special Judge to enter into question raised by parties who did not object to the award and apply for a reference. In another case which is reported in (2) I. L. R. 34 Calcutta, 451 (Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee), it has been held that under secs. 18, 20 and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, all that the court can deal with is the objection which has been referred to it he cannot go into a question raised for the first time by a party who had not referred any question or any objection to it under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The cases reported in (3) 38 C. L. J. 265 (Maharaja Sasi Kanta Acharyya Bahadur v. Abdur Rahman Sarkar and others) and (4) 23 C. W. N. 720. (The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Manohar Mukherjee and Ors.) are authorities for the proposition that a party who has accepted an award and has not applied for a reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not entitled to a share of any compensation money which may be allowed in excess of the award amount by the Land Acquisition Judge on a reference by any other party. The question of law involved in the present appeals appears to us to be covered by the above decisions. By the awards out of which these proceedings have arisen the Collector had given a half share of the compensation monies to the two appellants. It is true that by applying for a reference the appellants wanted the other half of the compensation monies. That claim of theirs failed before the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Such a failure would not be a ground to give the half share of the appellants in the compensation monies awarded by the Collector to Raj Mohan, who never asked for it.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.