AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatadri, J.—This is a petition in the nature of a writ of mandamus to direct the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), II Amabattur at Saidapet, to refer his application dated 14th November, 1963 to the civil Court under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, inasmuch as he is a person interested in the amount and in the apportionment of the compensation awarded. The petitioner is an employee of the Dunlop Rubber
Co. He and a few other employees of the Company struck a bargain with one Pichai Pillai and his three daughters, the owners of the land acquired in the land acquisition proceedings, by entering into an agreement of purchase on 27th August, 1962 for a consideration of Rs. 27750. In pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3000 at the time of the registration on 27th August, 1962. Subsequently, he invested a further sum of Rs. 4000 towards preparing a blue print and making out a lay-out consisting of 35 plots of building sites of various dimensions with park and playground. The roads were also laid out and graveled, and the sites plotted with survey stones.
While so, the Government published a notification under S. 4(1) of the Act that the petitioner's lands along with other lands were needed for the purpose of establishing the industrial estate near Avadi. The petitioner sent an application to the director of Industries and Commerce requesting him to example the acquisition of the lands concerned in this writ petition, or in the alternative that the sum of Rs. 18251 paid as sale consideration might be awarded as compensation. Nonetheless, the land acquisition proceedings continued by the issue of notices to the petitioner under Ss. 6 and 9 of the Act calling upon him to vacate and deliver possession. Finally an award was passed on 12th September, 1963 of which the petitioner had no notice. The petitioner came to know of the award on 3rd November, 1963 and on 4th November, 1963 sent an application to the Land Acquisition Officer under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Act requesting him to refer the matter to the civil Court, as he was a person interested in the amount and in the apportionment of the compensation awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer refused to consider his application, on the ground that he was not an award and that hence his request for a reference under S. 30 could not be considered. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition tinder Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ may issue directing the Special Tahsildar to refer his application to the civil Court.
The only Question for consideration therefore is whether the petitioner is a person interested, as defined in S. 3 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The definition section says the expression person interested includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. The expression person interested is very comprehensive and it does not profess to give an exhaustive definition. The expression person interested has been interpreted by various Courts, and the trend of the opinion seems to be that I should give a liberal interpretation. The earliest case on the point that comes to my mind is Pestonji Jehangir Modi, In re. 37 Bom. 76 where Justice Maclead said:
Under S. 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 the Act. It is quite possible that a person may be interested in the compensation money without having an interest in the land in the legal sense of the term.
In Chhutan Lal v. Mulchand 37 I.C. 822 the Punjab Chief Court had to consider whether a person who had entered into a valid agreement for the purchase of land was a "person interested" within the meaning of S. 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It observed that the expression "person interested" as defined in the Act was wide enough to include the equitable interest......In Kako Bai Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar and Others, it was observed that under S. 3 (b) of the Act it was immaterial whether there was any substance in the claim made by the person applying under S. 18 or not in The State of Bihar Vs. Dr. G.H. Grant and Another, t is observed thus- The "definition of person interested in the land" according to the Act is not exhaustive. What it really means is that it includes any person claiming interest in the amount of compensation whether it be a valid claim or not. The Collector is bound to treat every person who claims compensation as an interested person. He should include him in the award under S. 11, even though he may award him nothing.
It is also useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, 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 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.
On a review of the case law on the subject, it seems to me that the expression "person interested" does not require that a person must really have an interest in the land sought to be acquired. It is enough if he claims an interest in compensation, as distinguished from an interest in the property sought to be acquired. As long as a person claims an interest in the compensation, he is a person interested within the meaning of the definition of that expression. Even if a person denies the claim of the landlord, he is a person interested. Equally, a person may be interested even though his title to the land is not admitted or his right to compensation is denied. A person, without having an interest in the land, may be a "person interested" in the compensation money within the meaning of that expression. Thus in the instant case, here is a person who has entered into a valid registered agreement to purchase property from the original owners of the property. He has also paid a sum of Rs. 3000 towards the sale price.
He has also spent a considerable amount improving the property. Certainly when this property is acquired, he is also a person interested in the compensation amount.
But this will not automatically create any right in the petitioner to claim compensation. He will have to establish that he is also a person interested along with other persons to claim compensation. Under the circumstances, the Collector has simply to forward his application under S. 18 of the Act and leave the parties to fight out their respective claims in the civil Court. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar to refer the application of the petitioner dated 4th November 1963 to a civil Court under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Act. he writ petition is allowed. There will be as order as to costs.