Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 2163 of 1966

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant: Ali Mohammed Khan, Hussein Ali Khan, Jahangir Ali, Advocates.

Judges

Basi Reddy, J.

Acts

Order 1, rule 10 read with sec, 151, Civil Procedure Code, and under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act
provisions of sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
SECTION 9 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
SECTION 30 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 18.7.
SECTION 18 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act,
SECTION 18 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
LAND ACQUISITION ACT
SECTION 9 LAND ACQUISITION ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition under Article 226 was filed by Yousuf Begum seeking quashing of an award dated 18 March 1966 made by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad District (the 2nd respondent) in Case No. O/1136.LA/66, and asking that she be made a party to the land acquisition proceedings and that a fresh award be passed after giving her notice.

The lands in question were inam lands originally granted to the late Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussain (Sajjada of Dargah Mir Mohamed Saheb). The inam grant measured 248 bighas as Maded Maash. The petitioner claims descent from Syed Rahmatullah Hussain (brother of Shah Ali Raza Hussain) and contends she is a person interested in the inam lands.

A succession enquiry took place; initially succession was granted in the names of Faizunnisa Begum (daughter of Shah Ali Raza Hussain) and the petitioner as successor of Rahmatullah Hussain. Faizunnisa Begum died issueless in 1959; the petitioner’s claim was allowed in 1961. After an appeal and remand, the matter was decided for Tajunnisa Begum. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966 in the High Court, which was disposed of by a compromise on 12 August 1966 holding the petitioner to be the main inamdar and Tajunnisa Begum a shareholder.

Subsequently, in or about October 1966, part of the inam lands (69 acres and 16 guntas comprising specified survey numbers in Malkajgiri village) were acquired by the Government for railway offices and staff quarters and an award fixing compensation at Rs. 1,10,176.55 was passed by the 2nd respondent on 18 March 1966. Claims had been submitted before the land acquisition officer by Syed Nadeemuddin (claiming as permanent lessee) and by the Muslim Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh.

The Land Acquisition Officer made two references to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad: O.P. No. 2 of 1967 (reference under sections 30 and 31(2) for apportionment) and O.P. No. 6 of 1967 (reference under section 18). The petitioner says she only learned of the award in October 1966 and thereafter applied to the 2nd respondent (28 October 1966 and 23 November 1966) enclosing the High Court order and asking to be paid compensation and to be treated as a party. The 2nd respondent replied (30 November 1966) that she was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings and could not be paid compensation nor could a reference be made at her instance because references had already been made in respect of claims by respondents 3 and 4.

The petitioner applied to the Chief Judge of the City Civil Court under Order 1, rule 10 read with section 151 CPC and under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act to be impleaded in O.P. Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967; that application was dismissed on 12 April 1967 on the ground that a person who had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and whose name was not mentioned in the reference could not be added as a party in the Court reference. The petitioner then pursued the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the award dated 18 March 1966 made by the Special Deputy Collector is a nullity because the petitioner, a person interested in the land, was not given notice under section 9(2) (and section 9(3)) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore whether it should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner should be made a party to the land acquisition proceedings and/or entitled to have the 2nd respondent pass a fresh award after giving due notice.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the Land Acquisition Officer make a reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of apportionment or enhancement of compensation, despite not having been served with notice previously, and whether limitation under section 18(2)(b) applies in her case.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner asserted she is a "person interested in the land" by virtue of the High Court order dated 12 August 1966 in Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966 that recognized her as main inamdar and Tajunnisa Begum as a shareholder.
On that basis she contended she was entitled to notice of the acquisition proceedings under section 9(2) (and section 9(3)) of the Land Acquisition Act, but no notice was given and the 2nd respondent proceeded with the enquiry and passed the award on 18 March 1966.
Consequently she argued the award is a nullity and should be quashed; alternatively, she sought to be made a party to the proceedings and for a fresh award after due notice.
She also sought an order directing payment of compensation to her and to Tajunnisa Begum and, where appropriate, an order that the Land Acquisition Officer make a reference under section 18 of the Act.

Respondents' Positions (as reflected in the record)

The 2nd respondent (Special Deputy Collector) communicated by memo dated 30 November 1966 that the petitioner was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings, that compensation could not be paid to her, and that a reference under section 18 had already been made in respect of the claims put forward by other claimants (respondents 3 and 4).
The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in dismissing the petitioner’s application to be impleaded, held that a person who had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and whose name was not mentioned in the reference to the Civil Court could not be added as a party to the proceedings and could not urge a claim in that reference.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Shivdev Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1963 Pat. 201 at 206 (Divisional Bench: Ramaswami, C.J. & Untwalia, J.)	The Divisional Bench held (inter alia): (a) compliance with sections 4, 5-A and 6 does not mean that failure to serve a special notice under section 9(3) renders the acquisition and award illegal; (b) an order of acquisition or taking possession cannot be challenged in a reference under section 18 or section 30; (c) a person not served with notice under section 9 could still claim compensation by asking the Collector to make a reference under section 18 within the time prescribed by section 18(2)(b); and (d) if it is proved that a person had not been served with formal notice or had no knowledge of proceedings, the period of limitation in section 18(2)(b) would not bind him.	The Court relied on this authority to conclude that absence of notice under section 9 does not make the award a nullity, that the petitioner could not obtain certiorari to quash the award, and that the correct remedy was to allow the petitioner to apply to the Collector for a reference under section 18. The precedent also supported the view that limitation would not bar the petitioner if she had not received notice.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, stated in the opinion:

Recognition of Status: The court accepted that as a result of the High Court order in Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966 (12 August 1966), the petitioner is indubitably a person interested in the inam lands and therefore, in principle, entitled to notice under section 9(2)/(3) of the Land Acquisition Act if the Land Acquisition Officer had identified her as such.
Assessment of Legal Effect of Non-Notice: The court examined settled law cited in the opinion and concluded that the mere absence of a statutory notice under the Land Acquisition Act does not render the award void or a nullity. The opinion explicitly states that it is well-settled that an award made without such notice is not void simply by reason of that omission.
Appropriate Remedy: The court explained that the appropriate remedy for a person who claims a right to compensation but was not given notice is to apply to the Collector to have a reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act so that the Civil Court can determine the entitlement and apportionment/enhancement of compensation. Until a reference is made, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims of parties not included in the reference.
Limitation Considerations: The court considered section 18(2)(b)'s six-month limitation for making a section 18 reference and, following the reasoning in the cited Patna Division Bench decision, held that where a person proves they were not served with a formal notice under section 9(3) or had no knowledge of the proceedings, the period of limitation in section 18(2)(b) would not operate against them. In the present case, the petitioner asserted she learned of the award only in October 1966 and promptly acted thereafter; that assertion remained uncontradicted.
Application of Precedent: The court expressly relied on the Patna Divisional Bench decision in Shivdev Singh to support the propositions that (i) the award could not be quashed by certiorari for non-service of notice, (ii) the remedy was a section 18 reference, and (iii) limitation would not prevent the petitioner from seeking that remedy where notice had not been given.
Relief Framed to Give Effective Remedy: Given the above legal framework and the petitioner's uncontradicted assertion about when she became aware, the court determined it could not quash the award. Instead it granted limited relief: directing the 2nd respondent to entertain a section 18 application from the petitioner (if made within two months) and, if such application were made, to make a section 18 reference to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court within two weeks; and staying the Civil Court proceedings for three months to enable that process to take place.
Practical Considerations: The court observed that the instant case was a proper and just one for the Collector to entertain the petitioner’s application for a reference under section 18.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The writ petition is allowed in part. The court declined to quash the award dated 18 March 1966 but directed that the 2nd respondent (Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad District) must entertain an application by the petitioner under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if made within two months from the date of the order, and if so, make a reference to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad within two weeks thereafter. The court further directed the Chief Judge not to proceed with the enquiries in O.P. Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967 for three months from the date of the order so the petitioner could pursue the section 18 remedy. There was no order as to costs.

Immediate Consequences for the Parties:

The award of 18 March 1966 remains intact and is not quashed by this writ petition.
The petitioner has a time-limited opportunity (two months from the date of the court’s order) to apply to the 2nd respondent for a section 18 reference; if she does so, the 2nd respondent is ordered to make the reference to the Civil Court within two weeks.
The Civil Court proceedings in O.P. Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967 are stayed for three months to permit the petitioner to seek the section 18 reference and for the matters to be heard together if the reference is made.
There will be no order as to costs in the writ petition.

Broader implications: The opinion's reasoning explains and applies settled law (including the cited Patna Divisional Bench decision) on the consequences of non-service of notice under the Land Acquisition Act and the appropriate procedural remedy under section 18, but the opinion itself frames and applies relief limited to the parties and the circumstances before the Court. The opinion does not expand on any broader legal policy beyond applying those established principles to this case.

Show full summary ...

Yousuf Begum Pititioner v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh By The Secretary, Revenue Department And Others

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by Yousuf Begum, seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the award made on 18th March, 1966 by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad District (the 2nd Respondent to this writ petition) in Case No. O/1136.LA/66, with a further prayer that the petitioner may be made a party to the proceedings before that authority and a direction be issued to that authority to pass a fresh award, and further to pass any order or direction as this Court may deem fit.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that although she is ‘a person interested in the land,’ which was compulsorily acquired by the Government tinder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for constrution of offices and staff quarters for their new railway zone, and as such, was entitled to a notice of the land acquisition proceedings under sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, yet the 2nd respondent proceeded with the enquiry without giving any notice to her and made the aforesaid award on 18th March, 1966. Consequently, her contention is that the award is a nullity and should be quashed, and the 2nd respondent should be directed to pass a fresh award, after giving one due notice to the petitioner along with others who may be interested in the land. The brief history of this case is as follows. The lands in question were the inam lands granted in favour of late Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussain, who was the Sajjada of Dargah Mir Mohameed Saheb, and the inam lands measuring 248 bighas were granted as Maded Maash in favour of the Sajjada through the Muntaqab dated 21st Shahrewar, 1324 Fasli. The petitioner claims to be the grand-daughter of late Syed Rahmalullah Hussain, the bro-ther of late Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussain. Her case is that after the death of Syed Shah Ali Raza Husain and Rahmatullah Hussaini, the succession enquiry pertaining to the said inam lands was initiated and the lands were taken under the supervision and management of the Collector, District Ate??? Balda, Sarf-e-Khas pending disposal of the enquiry. Later on the lands were alleged to have been transferred by mistake to the Muslim Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh for management. After the completion of the succession enquiry, the succession to the inam lands at Malkajgiri village was granted in the names of Faizunnisa Begum, the daughter of Shah Ali Raza Hussain and the petitioner as successor of late Rahmutullah Hussain, and his daughter Tajunnisa Begum was held entitled only to a share in accordance with the personal law. Faizunnissa Begum died issueless on 31st July, 1959 and the petitioner filed a claim for succession which was allowed on 26th June, 1961 and she was held to be inamdar as the heir of the deceased Faizunnisa Begum, However, on appeal by her maternal aunt, Tajunnisa Begum, the case was remanded for re-trial and the lands remained under the supervision of the Muslim Waqf Board. After remand, the question was decided in favour of Tajunnissa Begum. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966) and the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and Tajunnisa Begum. By that order of this Court dated 12th August, 1966, the petitioner herein was held to be the main inamdar in respect of the inam lands in question and Tajunnisa Begum was held to be a shareholder. Thus, so far as the rights between the petitioner and Tajunnisa Begum were concerned, the order of the High Court decided the rights inter se. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she came to know that sometime in the month of October, 1966, an area of 69 acres and 16 guntas of the said inam lands forming S. Nos. 392/1, 393/1, 396 to 400 situated in Malkajgiri village, Hyderabad East Taluk, had been acquired by the Government and an award had been passed by the and respondent fixing the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,10,176-55p. It would appear that before the 2nd respondent, Syed Nadeemuddin (3rd respondent, herein) and the Wakf Board Andhra Pradesh (4th respondent herein) had put in their claims. While Syed Nadeemuddin claimed compensation in respect of 12 acres and 20 guntas as a permanent lessee under the original inamdar the Wakf Board claimed compensation in respect of the lands including these 12 acres and 20 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer made two references to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad— O.P No. 2 of 1967, which is a reference under sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment, and O.P No. 6 of 1967, which is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and amount of compensation was sent to the civil Court.

3. The petitioner's case is that she came to know about this ward only in October and so she made an application to the 2nd respondent on 28th October, 1966, enclosing with the application a copy of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966 and requesting the 2nd respon-dent to pay the compensation amount to her and to her sharesholder Tajunnisa Begum. Subsequently an application with full details was filed before the 2nd respondent on 23rd November, 1966 with the same prayer. The 2nd respondent, however, sent a memo, dated 30th November, 1966, to the petitioner intimating to her that her request could not be acceded to as she was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings. She was informed that the compensation amount could not be paid to her; nor could a reference be made to the Civil Court under section 18 at her instance regarding the quantum of compensation. She was also informed that a reference had already been made to the Civil Court and the matter was pending there in respect of the claims put forward by respondents 3 and 4 herein.

4. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad, under Order 1, rule 10 read with sec, 151, Civil Procedure Code, and under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act praying that she may be impleaded as a party in O.P Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967 which were pending before that Court. That application was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, by an order dated 12th April, 1967, on the ground that a person who had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and whose name was not mentioned in the reference made to the Civil Court could not be added as a party to the proceeding before the Court; nor could she urge her claim to compensation in that reference. Before filing the above application, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition with the prayers mentioned above.

5. There is considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966, the petitioner is indubitably a person interested in the lands in respect of which compensation had been awarded by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's case in that had the Land Acquisition Officer made reasonable enquiries he could have found out that the petitioner and Tajunnisa Begum were interested in the Lands and as such were entitled to notice under section 9(2) of the Act. However that be, as things now stand, the petitioner is certainly a person entitled to be heard in the matter of apportionment of the compensation, as also in the matter of enhancement of compensation when the matter reaches a Civil Court. But it is well settled that the absence of notice under any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, does not render an award made by the Land Acquisition Officer a nullity. It is equally well-settled that unless and until a reference is made to the civil Court by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of parties who have not sought a reference and whose claims are not the subject matter of a reference. In such cases while the award itself is not void, it is open to the person interested in the land to move the Collector to make a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act, further where no notice under section 9(3) of the Act was served on such a person, the period of limitation prescribed by the sec. 18(2)(b) does not stand in the way. In the present case, however, no question of limitation can arise because it is the petitioner's case that she came to know about the award only in October, 1966 and she filed an application before the Collector shortly thereafter.

6. In this connection a decision of a Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court consisting of Ramaswami, C.J, and Untwalia, J., in Shivdev Singh v. State of Bihar . A.I.R 1963 Pat, 201 at 206, is apposite. Dealing with the contentions similar to the ones raised in this Writ Petition, the learned Judges observed as follows:

“Coming to the third and the last point urged on behalf of the petititioner, it is to be noticed at the outset that it is not disputed that the requirements of the provisions of sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with. The argument put forward on behalf of the respondents is that even assuming that the petitioner was a person who was entitled to a special notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, the proceeding for the acquisition of the land and the award cannot be held to be illegal and ultra vires for the mere failure of the Collector to serve such a notice on the petitioner…………………………………………………………………………………The order of acquisition or the act of taking possession cannot be challenged in a reference to Court either under section 18 or section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. This also finds support from the rules as to the amount of compensation provided in section 25 of the Act. In my opinion, the petitioner, even if not served with a notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, could claim such compensation if he was entitled to any, by asking the Collector to make a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act. He could do so within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award as provided for under section 18(2)(b).

I may also observe that on proof of the fact, that he was not served With a formal notice under section 9(3) of the Act or had no notice or knowledge of any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, he would not be bound by the period of limitation provided for in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 18.”

7. That being the true legal position, in the present case the award passed by the 2nd respondent on 18th March, 1966, cannot be quashed by this Court by a certiorari. The award stands, although the petitioner is entitled to seek a reference to the Civil Court on an application to be made by her to the 2nd respondent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in that regard.

8. As already noticed, the two reference made by the 2nd respondent are now pending before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad as O.P Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967.

9. I would, therefore, allow this writ petition only to this extent, namely, that a direction will issue to the 2nd respondent (Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad District), to entertain the application to be filed by the petitioner under section 18 of the Act, if it is made within two months from this date and make a reference thereon to the Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad within two weeks thereafter. In the case of such an application, no question of limitation arises in this case, firstly, because the statement of the petitioner that she came to know of the passing of the award only in October, 1966 remains uncontradicted, and secondly, as pointed out by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, no question of limitation arises when a notice under section 9(3) of the Act was not in fact given to party who is entitled to it.

10. Moreover, the instant case, is eminently a just and proper one for the Collector to entertain the application and make a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act so far as the petitioner is concerned.

11. A direction will issue to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad, not to proceed with the enquiry in O.P Nos. 2 and 6 of 1967 for three months from this date, so that the petitioner may have reasonable time to appproach the 2nd respondent and the latter may make a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

12. If such a reference is made, all the three matters will be heard together by the learned Judge. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

13. Petition allowed in part; directions given.

Land Acquisition Act,

Yousuf Begum Pititioner v. The State Of Andhra ...