RAM CHAND Vs. COLLECTOR DY COMMISSIONER
LAWS(J&K)-1993-2-8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 26,1993

RAM CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
Collector Dy Commissioner Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

G H GRANT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BOREGOWDA AND VS. SUBBARAMIAH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)LAND including land comprised in Khasra No. 136 (8 kanals) situate in village Jakhani, Tehsil Udhampur, was acquired for the public purpose of construction of a grid station. The appellant claiming to be a protected tenant presented an application before the Collector stating therein that as he was entitled to get compensation, same be sanctioned in his favour or a reference made to the District Judge, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector found that as the name of appellant was not shown as protected tenant in the revenue record, no reference was required to be made as prayed. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the various relevant provisions of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while dismissing the writ petition which is required to be set aside.
(2.)WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
(3.)UNDER Sec. 31 of the Act the disputes only with respect to apportionment of compensation are required to be settled and referred to the court for decision. A person though not present before the Collector, during the proceedings for making the award, yet, can apply for and granted relief under this section if that person is shown to be "interested person" within the meaning of the definition under the Act. In a case where the Collector finds that the dispute not easy of solution, he has to make a reference with respect to apportionment. While under Sec. 18 of the Act a period is prescribed under Sec. 30. It was held in Boregowda and anr. v. Subbaramiah and others (AIR 1959 Mysore 265), that "it appears to be the intention of the scheme of the Act that, normally speaking. Deputy Commissor should make a reference when be himself does not decide the matter and that without unnecessary loss of time." The Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 237), dealt with the scope of Sec 8 and 30 of the Central Act (corresponding to Sec. 31 of the State Act) and held: "But a person who has not appeared in the acquisit on proceedings before the Collector, if he is not served with notice of the filing, may raise a dispute relating to apportionment or 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. Under S. 18 an application made to the Collector has to be made within the period prescribed by cl. (b) of sub -s, (2 of S. 18. But no such period is prescribed u/s 30. Again whereas under S. 18 the Collector is bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person interested, the Collector is u/s 30 not enjoined to make a reference; he may relegate the person raising the dispute to agitate the same in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared by his award. The powers which are exercised by the Collector u/s 18 (1) and under S. 30 are distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap.
However, a Division Bench of this Court in Swami Sukhanand vs. Samaj Sudhar Samiti and anr. (AIR 1962 J&E 59), had earlier held: "The Collector is not competent to make the reference under sec. 30 after he had made the award in respect of all the matters mentioned in S. 11 including the person to whom the compensation was to be paid and had also paid the compensation to him. If, after an award is made u/s 11 any person interested does not accept the award arid raises objection to it in respect of the measurement of the land or the amount of compensation or the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of it, he is given a statutory right by S. 18 to require the Collector to make a reference to the Court. Each of the two sections 18 and 30 has a separate scope and ambit and can come into play only under entirely different circumstances. While the right under Sec. 18 arises only after an award under Sec. 11 is made by the Collector, S. 30 will come into play only before the Collector makes an award in respect of the apportionment of the compensation which of the compensation which would involve the ascertainment of the compensation which would involve the ascertainment of the persons to whom the compensation is payable."



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