Province Of Bengal v. Radha Gobinda Thakur And Ors.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Das, J.:— This is an appeal by the Province of Bengal and concerns the compensation to be paid in respect of certain lands acquired by the Province of Bengal. The property acquired consisted of a plot of danga (high) land recorded in C.S Dag No. 1355 and certain arable lands recorded in C.S Dags Nos. 1370, 1409, 1463, 1472 and 1472/4500. The property acquired belonged to four brothers, Prangobinda Thakur, Radhagobinda Thakur, Gatigobinda Thakur and Satya Narayan Thakur. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 90 per bigha for the danga lands and Rs. 25 per bigha for the arable lands. Being dissatisfied by the award all the four claimants made a petition for reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per bigha for the danga lands and Rs. 150 per bigha for the arable lands. [Then his Lordship proceeded to deal with another property and other proceedings not relevant to the report and went on to say as follows:] As regards the portion of the claim in which all the four brothers were interested the learned Judge was of opinion that the brothers have to claim the entire amount which may be awarded hereafter for the land after service of regular notice on Prangobinda; otherwise the reference at their instance is bound to fail. The learned lawyer for the brothers accepted this position and notice of the reference case then pending before the learned District Judge was served on Prangobinda, who, however, did not appear. [After referring to another proceeding, not relevant here, his Lordship proceeded as follows:] The Province of Bengal did not contest the order of the learned District Judge in so far as it directed that the claim petition in which all the brothers were interested should be proceeded with for the entire amount after notice to Prangobinda alone. The Civil Revision case was disposed of by Mukherjea and Sharpe, JJ., on the 19th February, 1946, the ruie being discharged. After the matter went back to the learned District Judge the learned District Judge has accepted the reference and ordered compensation at the rate of Rs. 550 per bigha for the danga lands and Rs. 150 per bigha for the arable lands. It is the propriety of this order which is challenged in this appeal on behalf of the Province of Bengal.

2. Learned Assistant Government pleader, appearing for the Appellant, has raised two contentions.

3. [After discussing the first point not relevant to the present report, his Lordship proceeded as follows:] The second contention on behalf of the Appellant is that as Prangobinda, one of the referring claimants, withdrew from the case, the reference must be deemed to have been made only by three of the brothers and as such was incompetent. Reliance was placed on sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. I fail to see any force in this contention. The reference was properly made by all the four brothers. In the reference petition all the four brothers claimed that the value of the high land should be assessed at Rs. 500 per bigha and that of the arable lands at Rs. 150 per bigha. The mere fact that one of the referring claimants chooses to withdraw from the case at a later stage when a fresh petition by the other referring claimants would be barred, in my opinion, has no bearing on the question, viz., whether the reference petition could be treated as having been properly filed and entertained.

4. It was next contended that in so far as Prangobinda is concerned he having withdrawn from the case the reference must be deemed to be limited to the other brothers and the law will imply an apportionment of compensation as between the three brothers as Prangobinda withdrew from this case. In my opinion this contention is also unsound in the facts of the present case. As I have already stated, the Land Acquisition Judge by order No. 57 dated the 26th April, 1945, expressly held that the reference must proceed for the entire sum claimed at the instance of the three brothers after notice to the remaining brother, Prangobinda. This order was not challenged on behalf of the Province of Bengal. In my opinion it is too late in the day now to assert that this order was not correctly made. In my opinion it is no longer open to the Appellant to contest the position that the reference would proceed for the entire sum at the instance of the three brothers. Quite apart from this, in my opinion, there is no substance in the contention. The four brothers formed members of a joint Mitakshara family. It is not possible to predicate of any of the brothers that he has a defined share. The reference concerned the claim of all the four brothers. Under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reference may be made on any of the four grounds of objection, namely, measurement of land, amount of compensation to be paid, the person to whom the same is payable and the apportionment of the compensation inter se.

5. Under sec. 20 of the Act the Court will fix a date for determination of the objection, that is, the objection made under sec. 18 of the Act.

6. Under sec. 21 the scope of the enquiry is limited to a consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the award.

7. Sec. 25 of the Act only limits the power of the Court to fix the award at a sum not exceeding the amount claimed under sec. 18.

8. In my opinion the scheme of the Act is that if a reference is made under sec. 18 raising a specific ground of objection, the ground of objection has to be determined by the Court.

9. Here the reference petition raised a question as to the entire amount of compensation payable for the land acquired. It was this question which the Court was called upon to decide. The learned Assistant Government pleader referred us to the case of Prag Narain v. Collector of Agra(1). The facts of that case are entirely different. There an award was made appropriating the compensation money between the landlord and the tenants. The tenants acquiesced in the award. The landlord alone made a reference under sec. 18 on the question of valuation. The Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the valuation of the lands. The landlord then claimed the additional value of the land not only in so far as it concerned the landlord's interest but also in so far as it concerned the tenant's interest. The Judicial Committee said that the landlord is not entitled to claim the enhanced value in so far as it concerned the tenant's interest, the tenants having acquiesced in the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The case of The Collector of Dacca v. Golam Ajam Choudhnry(2) is also distinguishable on similar grounds.

10. In my opinion in a case like the present one where the claim of the four brothers who formed members of a joint Mitakshara family was not severable and where the reference was made by all of them acting jointly, the learned Land Acquisition Judge was perfectly justified in making an award for the entire sum representing the interest of all the four brothers. The second contention raised by the Appellant also fails.

11. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, hearing-fee being assessed at five gold mohurs.

Guha, J.:— I agree.