Mahapatra, J.:— These two applications in revision arise out of Land Acquisition cases Nos. 1094 and 1098 of 1960, pending before the Additional District Judge, Patna. An award was made in both the cases under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector of Patna in favour of one awarded in each case, but persons other than in whose favour such award was made claimed before the Collector that the compensation was pay able to them. In those circumstances, the Collector made a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) to the Court. The last portion of his order is in the following terms:—
“This is a matter of dispute of civil nature hence the matter is referred to the Dist. Judge, Patna, for decision and payment of the awarded amount to the rightful persons”.
2. It thus appears that as there was a dispute as to the persons to whom the awarded compensation is payable, the Collector made the reference in these two particular cases to the from for decision. The present petitioner made an application before the Court to be added as a party. Admittedly, she had not appeared before the Collector either at the time when the award was made or thereafter when the claim for payment of compensation was made by persons other than the awarded. This application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, on the ground that she would not be covered by the dispute that was referred to him by the Collector under section 30 of the Act. Learned Counsel contests this finding and urges that under section 53 of the Act, the Provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to a proceeding initiated under section 30 of the Act. In that view, the provisions under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, for addition of parties will be attracted to the present case.
3. The Land Acquisition Act provides foiled by the Collector in specific matters for decision of the Court. One such reference is contemplated under section 18. The matter which will be covered by such a reference under section 18 includes the question of persons to whom the amount of compensation is payable. In such a reference, the Court is required to cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection and directing their appearance before the Court on that day to be served on the application at whose instance the reference is made by the Collector and all persons interested in the objection. “Persons interested” has been defined in the Act to include all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. In that view, any person who can be called a person interested with reference to a particular land which is compulsorily acquired under the Act can come before the Court, when a reference is made to it under section 18, as he will be a person on whom a notice of hearing of the objection involved in that reference is required to be given. Even if such a notice is not given, he can still come before the Court and claim such notice and be heard.
4. Section 30 of the Act states:—
“When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if 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.”
5. For a reference under this section, no particular procedure has been prescribed in the Act like that mentioned in section 20 in regard to a reference under section 18. Section 53 of the Act lays down:—
“Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act.”
6. Since no other procedure has been prescribed for a reference under section 30, aid has to be taken of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in that respect. There is nothing in the Act which is inconsistent with the application of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, in regard to a reference under section 30 of the Act. In that view of the mailer, the Court had power to add a person as a party if it appears to the court to be just to do so; and, particularly, if the Court finds that the presence of such a person may be necessary in order to enable effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the case. The Court below should have considered this aspect and decided whether the present petitioner has made out a sufficient cause for being added as a party to the proceeding before it. On the facts of the case, there cannot be any doubt that she is a person interested in the land acquired and compensation determined.
7. The learned Additional District Judge has mentioned in his order that if the present petitioner is added as a party that will give rise to a complicated question of title and the question for consideration shall be entirely a new one and cannot be said to be covered by the reference made by the Collector. Section 30 provides two things, one is about a dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation and the other is about the dispute as to the persons to whom the same is payable. If in a case, the award is made jointly in favour of more than one person anil the parties do not agree as to the share in which the compensation will be taken by them (see section 29) and if there be a dispute in regard to in what share they should be paid, there can be a reference in that respect to the Court under section 30 by the Collector. That will be a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation money.
8. The other kind of dispute envisaged under that section is where an award is made in favour of one person but some other person of persons come before the Collector and ask for payment of that compensation, on the ground that they are entitled to receive that compensation either completely to the exclusion of the awarded or with the awarded. That will be a dispute as to the persons to whom the compensation money is payable and can also be the subject of reference under section 30. If the dispute is of the former kind, viz. as to the apportionment of the compensation, persons who have not come before the Collector during the proceedings for making the award, may not be permitted to come before the Court, because the dispute referred for decision of the Court, in that case is confined to in what share the compensation money will be paid to the awarded. But if the reference is in regard to the second category of disputes, as to the persons to whom the compensation money is payable, there, the scope of decision for the court will be who are the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation.
9. In the present case, the Collector found when the claim for payment of compensation was made by the persons other than the awarded that there was a dispute of that nature and he referred the same to the Court for decision. The present petitioner, prima facie, is a person interested in the compensation fixed for the land under acquisition, within the meaning of the definition under the Act and the question being as to persons to whom the compensation is payable, she will be one of such persons, prima facie, to be considered in regard to her claim by the Court in the reference case. The mere fact that she was not before the Collector in the proceedings for making the award under section 11 or thereafter, will not stand in her way in taking advantage of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC.
10. We are aware of a decision in the case of Smt. Indumati Debi v. Tulsi Thakurani, AIR 1942 Cal 53, in which it was he that the jurisdiction of the Court in a reference made by the Collector under section 30 is confined to a consideration of the dispute expressly referred to it by the Collector an addition of parties may indeed be made when the persons who desire to be added as parties do not raise any new dispute but want to place other materials before the Court in connection with the dispute that is referred to it by the Collector But it cannot be permitted where the question sought to be raised is entirely a new one and is not covered the reference made by the Collector. The facts of that case revealed that an award was made in favour of three persons. There was a dispute between those three persons as regards their right to the compensation money and, therefore, there was a reference by the Collector under section 30 of the Act. The petitioner, who came before the High Court in revision, claimed that a moiety share of the premises acquired which belonged to her mother had devolved upon her to the exclusion of the awarded and therefore, she was entitled to half of the compensation money. That was clearly a reference about apportionment of the compensation money between persons in whose favour a joint award had been made by the Collector and there was a dispute as to in what share they would be entitled to lake the compensation money. In that case, therefore, the introduction of a new claimant was not allowed by the Court.
11. Those facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as here the award was made in favour of one person and the Collector has made the reference not about apportionment between the awardees but as to persons to whom the compensation money is payable. Secondly, when the attention of their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in that case was drawn to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kishan Chand v. Jagannath Prasad, (1902) ILR 25 All 133 in which it had been laid down that the provisions of section 32 of the CPC (as it then was), corresponding to the present Order 1, Rule 10, of the present Code, was applicable to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge (Court) in accordance with the provisions of S. 53 of that Act their Lordships preferred to follow the bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in two previous cases in which no reference to the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken into account.
12. They, however, did not say that the view taken in the Allahabad decision was susceptible to any fault or demur. I think, in view of the clear provisions of Section 53 of the Act, the provisions under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, are clearly attracted to a case of reference under section 30 before the Court when the nature of the dispute under reference does not change. The Calcutta decision, for the reasons given above, is distinguishable and cannot give the guide-line for decision of the present application before us.
13. The rule is therefore, made absolute in the present two cases and the order of the Court below refusing to implead the present petitioner as a party to the proceeding under section 30 before the Court is set aside. The applications are accordingly allowed, but there will be no order for costs in the circumstances of the case.
14. A.B.N Sinha, J.:— I agree.
AK/RKC/G.G.M
15. Petition allowed.
Comments