AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Lalit Belwal counsel for the appellant, Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Arvind Vashisht, A.S.G. for respondent No. 3.
Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haldwani, Nainital, whereby reference for compensation u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected.
Briefly stated a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') was issued on 13.9.1982 for acquisition of 70 Bigha 8 Biswa land of village Haripur Colonal Ward, Pargana Bhawar for the construction of buildings of a Model Industrial Training Institute, (MITI). Notification u/s 6(1) was issued on 16.9.1982. Thereafter compliance of the provisions of Section 17 were made and possession was taken over the land on 23.7.1983.
The Land Acquisition Officer after hearing the claimants fixed compensation @ Rs. 2.94 per squire feet. Feeling aggrieved the claimants have prayed the District Collector, Nainital to issue reference u/s 18 of the Act.
The Land Acquisition Officer has also found that the ownership of the claimants over the acquired land is not beyond doubt and is disputed. The State Government has already been in possession of the acquired land, therefore, reference u/s 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made by the Collector, Nainital to the District Judge, Nainital.
Briefly stated according to the claimant / appellants that Sri Ram Ratan Gupta was the landlord of the acquired land. There was recovery proceedings against Sri Ram Ratan Gupta and therefore, he was treated to be defaulter towards the Income Tax dues. The Income Tax Department has attached the land of Sri Ram Ratan Gupta and for realization of Income tax, they carved out 36 plots of 75 x 60 or 4,500 Sq. feet each from the total land of Sri Ram Ratan and thereafter sold the said plots. The claimants are the bona fide purchasers of the plots from the Income Tax Department. The land acquired by the Central Government is adjacent to the Haldwani-Nainital motor road. The claimants have claimed compensation @ Rs. 18/- per squire feet.
The opposite parties have contested the reference before the District Judge. Opposite party No. 1, Collector, Nainital in his reply has submitted that the land was barren land. The land which was adjacent to the motor road was valued higher than the land situated at a distance from motor road. The compensation was, therefore, fixed according to law.
Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 Model Industrial Training Institute and Union of India have submitted that the land of Sri Ram Ratan Gupta has been vested in the State of U.P. and the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation for that land. A ceiling case is pending in the Court of Prescribed Authority Kanpur. A notice u/s 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was served on Sri Ram Ratan and the wife of the owner of the land has filed appeal before the District Judge, Unnau which was dismissed on 31.1.1976. Against the order of the District Judge, the wife of Sri Ram Ratan Gupta has preferred a writ petition, which was also dismissed. The land was declared surplus on 2.2.1980 and thereafter the land vested in the State of U.P. The land is recorded in the name of M.I.T.I. in revenue records. The reference is barred by res judicata.
The persons who purchased plots form Income Tax Department also filed objections and have submitted that the reference u/s 31 of the Act, is based on false facts. They purchased plots from Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Department has issued sale certificates and also handed over possession of the plots to the purchasers. Thus the direction made u/s 31 of the Act is liable to be set aside.
In reply to the objections filed above, the Collector Nainital has filed rejoinder and has submitted that the objectors have no locus standi. They have no right and title over the land in dispute. The land or any part of it has not been recorded in their names in the revenue record. The land was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act and that land has already vested in the State. The Income Tax Officer, Bareilly has no jurisdiction to auction the land.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
Whether the claimant or his predecessor was the Bhumidhar of the plot over which he claimed ownership?
Whether the compensation awarded is not sufficient ?
To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled ?
Whether the disputed land has been vested in the State of U.P. being surplus under the provisions of Ceiling Act?
Whether the reference is barred u/s 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In Reference No. 140/1989 (Ashok Bansal v. Collector) and reference No. 141 of 1989 (Ashish Kumar v. Collector) the following issue was also framed:
Whether the reference is barred by limitation ?
The following two additional issues were framed in Reference No. 187 of 1989 (Collector Nainital v. Ravi Kumar):
Whether any objector has possession over any part of the disputed land ? If so, its effect ?
To what amount of compensation, if any, are the objections entitled?
The claimants examined Makhan Singh as P.W.1, Ranjeet Singh as P.W.2, Sushil Kumar as P.W.3 and R.B. Agarwal as P.W.4. On behalf of Collector, Nainital Mukhtar Ahamad was examined. Both the parties have also adduced documentary evidence.
On the basis of the evidence on record the reference court has decided issue No. 1 and 7 against the claimants and has held that the claimants have no right and title over the land in question. In the sale certificate issued by the Income Tax Department, there is no mention of the number of acquired land.
In the answer of issue No. 4 the reference court has held that court was not competent to express any opinion on the sale auction held by the Income Tax Department.
Issue No. 6 was decided against the claimants and held that the reference was not barred by limitation.
As regards issues No. 2, 3 and 8 the reference court has held that as the claimants failed to prove that neither they have acquired any profit from the land in dispute nor they have any right or title over the land in dispute, therefore, they are not entitled to get any compensation.
Feeling aggrieved the present appeals have been preferred by the claimants respondents.
In the present appeal it has to be seen that whether the reference court has based its findings on the material on record. Whether the claimants have any right and title over the acquired land and as such they are entitled to get compensation. It has also to be seen as to whether the claimants have been able to prove the objections raised by them u/s 18 of the Act.
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under:
Reference to Court. -
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award 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 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 is taken:
(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at die time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award;
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12, Sub-section (2); or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire.
Collector, Nainital has made reference u/s 30/31 of the Act. Section 30 and 31 of the Act reads as under:
Dispute as to apportionment. -
When the amount of compensation has beer) settled u/s 11, it any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the court.
Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court: -
(1) On making an award u/s 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to which a reference u/s 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application u/s 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of appropriate Government instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interest of the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.
Investment of money deposited in respect of lands belonging to person''s incompetent to alienate.
(1) If any money shall be deposited in Court under Sub-section (2) of the last preceding section and it appears that the land in respect whereof the same was awarded belonged to any person who had no power to alienate the same, the Court shall
(a) Order the money to be invested in the purchase of other lands to be held under the like title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall have been deposited, was held, or
(b) If such purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government or other approved securities as the Court shall think fit;
And shall direct the payment of the interest or other proceedings arising from such investment to the person or persons who would for the time being have been entitled to the possession of the said land, and such moneys shall remain so deposited and invested until the same be applied, -
(i) In the purchase of such other lands its aforesaid; or
(ii) In payment to any person or persons becoming absolutely entitled thereto.
(2) In all cases of moneys deposited to which this section applies, the Court shall order the costs of the following matters, including therein all reasonable charges and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the Collector, namely.
(a) The costs of such investments as aforesaid;
(b) The costs of the orders for the payment of the interest or other proceeds, of the securities upon which such moneys are for the time being invested, and for the payment out of Court of the principal of such moneys, and of all proceedings relating thereto, except such as may be occasioned by litigation between adverse claimants.
The main contention of the claimant is that there was outstanding dues of Income Tax against Sri Ram Ratan Gupta who was resident of Kanpur. The Income Tax Department attached his land carved out 36 plots of 75 x 60 feet each. These plots were sold to 36 persons by the Income Tax Department. There were 27 claimants out of 36 persons who purchased plots from Income Tax Department.
There is no dispute that the claimant has purchased the plots from Income Tax Department on auction. He paid required amount to the Income Tax Department and got receipt and sale certificate from the Department. The claimants have also filed copy of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Tehsil Haldwani in Mutation case No. 30/225 of 1980-81 u/s 34 and 35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
It is to be seen whether the land purchased by the claimants from the Income Tax department wholly or partly forms part and parcel of the land acquired by the Government.
Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated September 13,1982 and the following land was acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------- District Pargana Mauza Approximate Area Plot No. Bigha Biswa ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nainital Bhawar Haripur 21/1 11 06 Chakhata Karnal 21/2 7 02 Ward 21/3 45 14 21/4 6 06 ------------------------- Total area 70 08 ----------------------------------------------------------------
The acquired land was recorded in the name of the following persons:
---------------------------------------------------------------- Plot No. Area Name of the Bhumidhar Grade Bigha Biswa ---------------------------------------------------------------- 21/1 11 6 U.P. Government - 21/2 6 8 Barren land 14 Canal 21/3 35 14 Smt. Kantibai Bhumidhar 10 0 Ramtaran s/o Bihari Lal Bhumidhar 21/4 6 6 Ramratan s/o Bihari Lal Bhumidhar ---------- 70-08 ----------------------------------------------------------------
The above Statement shows that only 16 Bigha 8 Biswa land of plot No. 21 belonging to Sri Ram Ratan was acquired by the Government.
The Income Tax Department carved out 36 plots. Each plot having an area 6ox 75 feet and as such the total area of 36 plots comes to 1,62,00 Sq. feet or 23 Bigha 16 Biswa 11/17 Biswansi land. It has been said that the land attached by the Income Tax Department was a single plot. Out of the acquired land only 16 Bigha 6 Biswa land was in the name of Sri Ram Ratan Gupta. Thus the land acquired by the Government and the land attached and later on auctioned by the Income Tax Department is entirely different to each other.
From the above discussion it is clear that the land acquired by the Government vide notification dated September 13, 1982 is not the land, which was attached and auctioned by the Income Tax Department to 36 persons. Location and description, plot numbers etc. has not been given in the sale certificate issued by the Income Tax Department. Thus it was for the claimants to prove that the land acquired by the Government vide notification dated 13th September 1982, was the same land which was attached by the Income Tax Department and after carving out 36 plots, auctioned to the claimants.
The reference court has considered the evidence adduced by the parties and in my opinion there is no illegality or material irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the reference Court.
The jurisdiction of the reference court is limited for the purpose of deciding the claims of the parties. However I find that the auction proceedings were finalized in favour of the claimants.
In view of the above, liberty is given to the claimant to take appropriate steps to get his rights adjudicated by filing a suit before the appropriate Court for declaration of their rights, title and possession over the land in dispute and if they succeed to prove his interest over the land acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of M.I.T.I. Haldwani, they shall be entitled to get the relief in accordance with law. Any finding in this reference will not come in the way of the claimant in deciding their title suit in accordance with law.
Subject to the observations made above for approaching the alternative remedy, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.