My attention is invited to the judgment in the matter of Govind Narayan Lotlikar Vs. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar and ors. MANU/MH/0295/1987: AIR 1987 Bom. 32. In the reported matter, an application was tendered for impleadment of third party applicant to the proceedings of reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court dealing with the issue has observed that any person who claims to be entitled to the compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceeding or part thereof or who claims to be interested in acquired property, cannot be permitted to be impleaded when the said person/persons were not parties before the Collector. If a person who was not a party before the Collector, is impleaded by the District Court in a reference, the nature of dispute will be substantially changed, which would not be permissible. In a reference application tendered under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the civil Courts are expected to decide the market value of the acquired property based on the evidence produced before the Court. The determination of issues in an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is different from nature of proceedings under Section 30of the Act. Proceedings under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act provide that when the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises 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. In the instant matter, the third party applicants have not raised any dispute before the Collector as contemplated by section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The controversy arising between the parties inter-se, therefore, is not capable of determination by the Court dealing with the reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order passed by the trial Court, permitting impleadment of the third party applicants as claimants, is otherwise erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Decided On: 17.07.2012
Appellants: Shri Machindra S/o Santaram Kutwad, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Harangul (Bk). Tq. and Dist. Latur
Vs.
Respondent: Sharad S/o Khanderao Survase, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Bhimnagar, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Sharad S/o Khanderao Survase, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Bhimnagar, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Borde , J.
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference no. 456 of 1999 pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur. It is claimed by the petitioner that some agricultural property situated at village Harangul (Bk.) have been acquired by the State for Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation and an award has been passed in the year 1998. The petitioner/claimant being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered an application to the Collector, seeking reference of the matter to the civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. The Collector referred the matter to the civil Court and on receipt of the reference, same is numbered as L.A.R. no. 456 of 1999. Respondents 1 to 3 are third party applicants, who tendered an application to the reference Court, seeking their impleadment as the claimants in the proceedings. It is the contention of the third party applicants that they have purchased the property from the claimant/petitioner herein in the year 1992. It is contended by the third party applicants that there was some compromise entered into between the claimant and them and they have been permitted under the compromise to tender the application seeking their impleadment in the pending reference proceeding. The application tendered by the third party applicants was initially allowed by the trial Court in view of the order passed on 24.2.2011 but the claimant-petitioner herein by tendering an application at Exhibit 22, requested the Court to recall the order passed earlier, permitting impleadment of the third party applicants, as claimants. In the reference proceedings, it is the contention of the claimant-petitioner herein that the third party applicants do not have entitlement to get themselves impleaded as claimants in the reference application. The names of the third party applicants do not appear in the award and they were also not held entitled to receive any part of the compensation amount. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act do not permit impleadment of the third party applicants, as claimants in the reference proceedings. The application tendered by the petitioner-original claimant, seeking recall of the order passed by the reference Court on 24.2.2011 has been turned down and the said order is subjected to challenge in this Petition.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel appearing for the parties. It is an admitted position that the third party applicants were not party to the award nor any of them was held entitled to receive compensation under the award and as such, their names were not included in the "E" statement. It is the claimant who has received the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition of the property. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award, may by a written application to the Collector, require him that the matter be referred for determination of the Court as to whether his objection to be the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or to the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested.
3. In the instant matter, the third party applicants cannot be considered as the persons interested who have not accepted the award nor the third party applicants are amongst the persons who tendered the application to the Collector, requiring him to refer the matter to the Court. It is the petitioner whose name appears in the "E" statement who has received the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and is a person who has tendered the application to the Collector, requiring him to refer the matter for determination to the Court. It is the claimant alone who is entitled to maintain the reference application, claiming enhancement in amount of compensation.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents referring to the provisions of section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contends that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, an application as contemplated by Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of the third party applicants is entertainable. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, so far as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that any person interested who has not accepted the awarded, may by written application to the Collector, require him that the matter be referred for determination of the Court. The provisions contained in Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure shall have to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the interpretation put forth by the respondent-third party applicants based on provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is to be accepted, it would be in breach of the limitation imposed by section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. My attention is invited to the judgment in the matter of Govind Narayan Lotlikar Vs. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar and ors. MANU/MH/0295/1987: AIR 1987 Bom. 32. In the reported matter, an application was tendered for impleadment of third party applicant to the proceedings of reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court dealing with the issue has observed that any person who claims to be entitled to the compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceeding or part thereof or who claims to be interested in acquired property, cannot be permitted to be impleaded when the said person/persons were not parties before the Collector. If a person who was not a party before the Collector, is impleaded by the District Court in a reference, the nature of dispute will be substantially changed, which would not be permissible. In a reference application tendered under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the civil Courts are expected to decide the market value of the acquired property based on the evidence produced before the Court. The determination of issues in an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is different from nature of proceedings under Section 30of the Act. Proceedings under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act provide that when the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises 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. In the instant matter, the third party applicants have not raised any dispute before the Collector as contemplated by section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The controversy arising between the parties inter-se, therefore, is not capable of determination by the Court dealing with the reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order passed by the trial Court, permitting impleadment of the third party applicants as claimants, is otherwise erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is thus allowed. The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur on 28.3.2012 below Exhibit 22 in L.A.R. no. 456 of 1999 is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by the petitioner at Exhibit 22 shall be deemed to have been allowed. It would be open for the third party applicants to institute proceedings before an appropriate forum for safeguarding their interests. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment