- (1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. These are 8 appeals filed by the State Government under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred co as 'the Act' ).
(2.) SINCE the lands involved in these appeals were acquired under the same Notification, a common award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector and a common award under Section 26 of the Act was also made by civil court, these appeals are heard together with the consent of parties as the materials and points involved are the same. An area of 11 bigha 17 Biswa 15 dhur of land in Allahabad was acquired for Engineering College on basis of a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 23-10-1976. Notice was given by the Land Ac quisition Collector to the respondents as persons interested, who claimed com pensation @ 50 per sq. yard initially, which was enhanced to Rs. 80 per sq. yard before Land Acquisition Collector. Land Acquisition Collector deter mined market value @ 30,30 per sq. yard of which 6 Annas interest were awarded to the claimants and balance 10 Annas were held to be the interest of State Government in the acquired land. Aggrieved by the determination, claimants requested for reference to civil court under Section 18 of the Act stating that the market value determined is too low and entire amount determined is the interest of the claimants. They also stated that they have full interest in the acquired land in which State Government has no interest Long after the references at the instance of land owners, District Collector with the permission of the Board of Revenue requisitioned the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference to the civil court to consider the respondents have no interest in the land and as such they are not entitled to compensation awarded in their favour. In the references, volumes of documents were filed and witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties in support of their res pective cases. Learned District Judge on consideration of the materials on record held that the market value as determined by the Laud Acquisition Collector calls for no interference. It was, however, held that interest of the State Government is for the rent only and capitalising the same by adepting multiple of 20 the amount was awarded in favour of State Government and balance compensation was directed to be paid to the respondents. State Government has, preferred appeals and respondents have filed cross- objections for enhancement of the compensation. Mr. S. P. Gupta, learned Advocate General submitted that respon dents who were in possession of the acquired area had no interest therein and as such they are not entitled to any compensation Mr. Suwami Dayal, learned counsel for respondents while submitting that respondents are entitled to the entire compensation at the rate of Rs. 80 per sq. yard being perpetual lessees and there was no scope for reducing the amount awarded by Land Acquisition Collector at instance of State Government.
(3.) ON rival contentions, following points require consideration: (i) Whether reference made to the civil court at the instance of Collector is maintainable? (ii) Whether it is within the period of limitation? (iii) Whether State Government otherwise has a right of appeal against the award? (iv) Whether apportionment as determined by civil court is correct? And (v) What is market value of the land? Mr. Swami Dayal, learned counsel for claimants is correct in his submission that reference not having been requisitioned by Land Reforms Commissioner, is not competent at instance of Collector of the District. It is seen that Principal of Engineering College brought to notice of the Collector of the District that 6 Annas interest has been determined by Land Acquisition Collector on basis of which compensation has been offered to respondents although they have no interest in the acquired land. District Collector sought for permission from Board of Revenue to requisition the Land Ac quisition Collector to make a reference for determination of interest of res pondents. ON obtaining permission from Board of Revenue, Collector requisitioned Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference. No provision of law or material has been brought to our notice to find that exercises power of Land Reforms Commissioner under Section 18 (3 ). It is not the authority to give permission to the Collector to make a reference. Thus, on basis of such permission of Board of Revenue, Collector was not authorised to move the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference to the civil court. Besides, determination of excessive compensation can be challenged in such reference. There is no scope for reference under Section 18 (3) in respect of apportion ment. Offer of 6 Annas of the amount of compensation to respondents declaring the balance 10 Annas interest to be of State Government cannot be assailed by State Government which is bound by the decision of the Collector though respondents can challenge the same in reference. In appeals by State Government, award of 6 Annas interest to respon dents by Land Acquisition Collector, which has been enhanced to full interest minus capitalisation of rent by learned District Judge is challenged. Challenge to award of Collector by State Government is prohibited under Section 25 of the Act. Learned Advocate General has relied upon Section 18 (3) of the Act as inserted by amendment of the State legislature in support of such challenge. Section 18 (3) provides that in a case where Collector has offered compensation which is excessive, Land Reforms Commissioner can requisi tion Collector to make a reference to civil court for determination of market value. Period of limitation has been provided under Section 18 (4) of the Act as inserted by State Legislature by amending Section 18.;