- (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 At this stage, it may be stated that Ram Swaroop Dass had already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 8,250/- out of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer-Consequently, the State of Rajasthan served a notice upon Ram Swaroop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. The learned District Judge took up issues No. 1 and 2 as preliminary issues and decided them in favour of the defendant and by his judgment and decree dated December 7, 1971 dismissed the suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by the trial Court, the plaintiff, State of Rajathan, has filed this appeal. Mr. L. R. Mehta filed power on behalf of Ram Swaroop Dass, respondent, but at the time of arguments on February 18, 1975 Mr. Rajendra Mehta appeared for Mr. L R. Mehta and pleaded no instructions. The appeal has, therefore, been heard ex parte. Two points have been pressed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant - State of Rajasthan. It has been urged in the first instance that the reference made to the District Court under sec. 18 of the Act was competent and consequently the order dated May 23, 1960 is not without jurisdiction. The other contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate is that since the defendant did not file appeal to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan under sec. 54 of the Act from the order dated May 23, 1960, the order became final and cannot be challenged in this suit. In this connection it has also been urged that the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct from challenging the right of the defendant to receive the amount of compensation, is incorrect. In order to determine the question whether the order dated May 23, 1960 is a valid order, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of sec. 18 of the Act, under which the said order was passed, sec. 18 reads as under : "18. Reference to Court - (1) The (State Government) department on whose behalf (or the company for which) acquisition is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the amount of costs allowed, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. " (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award or the amendment there is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made - (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or the amendment thereof, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award or the amendment there, and (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under sec. 12 sub-sec. (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award or the amendment thereof whichever period shall first expire. "
(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. 'person interested' has been defined in sec. 3 (b) of the Act as follows : "3 (b), - the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;" The words 'person interested' occur in a number of sections of the Act. They are secs. 5a, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 29. The scheme of the Act is like this. First of all there are preliminary proceedings under sec. 4 preceding intended acquisition, under which the land Acquisition Officer gives a public notice in the prescribed form of the proposed acquisition. Under section 5a, any 'person interested' in any land in respect of which a notice has been given under sec. 4, may object to the acquisition of the land. Thereafter, a declaration is made under sec. 6 that the land is required for a public purpose and such a declaration is a conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Then, under sec. 9, the Land Acquisition Officer causes public notice to be given stating that the State Government intends to take possess on of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Sec. 9 (2) further requires that such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all "persons interested" in the land to appear personally or by agent before the land Acquisition Officer. Under sec. 11, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeds to enquire into the objections, if any, which any 'person interested' has made pursuant to a notice given under sec. 9 as to the measurement of the land, its value at the date of publication of the declaration under sec. 6 and also as regards the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation. It is under this section that he fixes the amount of compensation and also determines as to whom the amount of compensation is to be paid. Sec. 12 provides that the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer under sec. 1 will be final and conclusive evidence as between the Land Acquisition Officer and the 'persons interested' and the Acquisition Officer shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the 'persons interested' as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is made. However, if the Department on whose behalf or the company for which the acquisition is made or any 'person interested' may by written application to the Acquisition Officer require that the matter be referred for the determination of the court as to the various points referred to in sec. 18 of the Act. ;