Smt. Murtaza Bano vs State of U.P. and Others

We have learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.

The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 30th May, 2008 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Barabanki vide Annexure-1 which according to him is erroneous on the ground that though the legal position is settled that there is no limitation for making a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act yet the application of the petitioner to that effect has been rejected by the Officer.

Learned counsel referred to various judgments of Hon''ble the Apex Court as well as this Court.

In the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, , it has been held that there is no limitation for making a reference u/s 30 for determination of right to compensation which may have existed before the award or which may have devolved upon the applicant since the award.

This view has been reiterated in a subsequent judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Another, .

On the other hand Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for private respondents No. 11 and 12 submitted that there is no quarrel about the position in law in respect of limitation but in para 13 referred by learned counsel for petitioner, as above, of the judgment of Dr. G.H. Grant (supra), it has also been held that the Land Acquisition Collector is, u/s 30, not enjoined to make a reference: he may relegate the person raising a dispute as to apportionment, or as to the person to whom compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit.

Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has already instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 276 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki in respect of declaration of his right, which is still pending.

Sri Shafiq Mirza appearing for respondent No. 6 supported the submission made by Sri Siddiqui and argued that the petitioner''s application for reference was not rejected only on the ground of limitation but also on the ground that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioner had any direct or indirect right or interest in the property under acquisition.

Sri Mirza pressed in service a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter Prakash Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. Krishna Singh Sata Singh, . He referred to para 13 of the judgment which is based on the ratio of judgment in the matter of Dr. G.H. Grant (supra).

Learned counsel for petitioner in order to counter the submission of Sri Mirza contends that the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector holding that petitioner''s right or interest direct or indirection was not visible from the revenue records, is based on the opinion of District Government Counsel and it is not an independent opinion based on the materials available on record.

Ms. Kirti Srivastava appearing for the State on the other hand argued that the order of the Land Acquisition Collector is based on revenue records as is stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

Again at this stage, learned counsel for petitioner referred to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, to argue that an action is to be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and not from the supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits.

On due consideration of rival submissions, we are of the considered view that there is no dispute over the legal proposition canvassed before the Court that there is no limitation prescribed for making a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, it is not an automatic process and before that the Land Acquisition Collector has to satisfy himself on the basis of evidence and materials available on record that a party claiming reference of the matter has a right to claim the compensation and in the case of any controversy, the Reference Collector can relegate the party to a Civil Court for determination of rights.

As the parties are making cross allegations and claims regarding their rights to the ownership over the property under acquisition, we do not express any opinion nor should we in exercise of our powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which can be adjudicated only by a Civil Court in a civil suit proceedings.

Thus, it will remain open for the petitioner to agitate the same by way of civil suit in terms of the ratio laid down in the judgment in Dr. G.H. Grant''s case (supra).

Writ petition is allowed with limited relief as aforesaid.