Appeals Nos
1003 and 1004 of 1964
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 7 1963 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Civil Revision Applications Nos 294 and 295 of 1962
section T Desai G L Sanghi and O C Mathur for the appel lant in both the appeals
C B Agarwala section K Gambhir and Ganpat Rai for respondent No 1 in both the appeals
R N Sachthey section P Nayar for R H Dhebar for the res pondent No 3 in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench dated January 7 1963 allowing two Civil Revision applications Nos 294 of 1962 and 295 of 1962 filed by Paramsukhdas a respondent before us
The High Court by this judgment quashed orders dated April 9 1962 in the Land Acquisition Cases No 189 of 1961
and No 190 of 1961 as amended subsequently on July 6 1962 and remitted the matter to the Court of the Civil Judge Akola for a fresh decision on merits with advertence to the remarks in the judgment
The High Court further directed that Paramsukhdas be allowed to be impleaded as a non applicant in the two proceedings and all parties will be allowed to amend their pleadings or make fresh pleadings with respect to the alleged compromise as filed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No 232 of 1960
Mr section T Desai the learned counsel for the appellant con tends 1That the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115
to interfere with the orders of the Civil Judge dated April 9 1962 364 2 That Paramsukhdas respondent No 1 is not a person interested in the compensation and is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 I of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act  3 That if at all no revision but appeal lay to the High Court
Before dealing with the above contentions it is necessary to state the relevant facts
Sunderlal appellant owned some land field No 22 in Monza Umari Taluq and District Akola
This field had been leased to Khushal Singh under a registered lease for 5 years commencing from April 1 1954
The field was acquired by the Government
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on January 30 1960 and assessed the total compensation at Rs 2610558 and apportioned the amount equally between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh
On February 17 1960 the Land Acquisition Officer noted the following regarding Khushal Singh 2
Khushalsing so Tolaram a According to letter No 154  60 of 15th February 1960 from the Court of Civil Judge Sr
Dn Khamgaon and the attachment order issued by that Court in CS No 4 B1958 the amount to be paid to Khushalsing Tolaram be kept in Revenue Deposit
b One Sunderlal minor guardian father Madanlal Harjimal of Akola has presented an objection petition against this payment
 Sunderlal filed an application for reference under section 18 of the Act claiming more compensation and also complaining in regard to the apportionment of the amount of compensation between him and Khushal Singh
According to him Khushal Singh was not a protected tenant and his period of lease having expired he was not at all entitled to any portion of the amount of compensation
A reference under section 18 was made on June 27 1961 and this reference was numbered Land Acquisition Case No 189 of 1961
Khushal Singh also applied for a reference and he claimed enhancement of compensation and challenged the basis of apportionment adopted by the Land Asquisition Officer
The Collector made the reference and it was numbered Land Acquisition No 190 of 1961
Before we deal with what happened before the Civil Judge it is necessary to give some facts about the litigation between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh On July 21 1956 Sunderlal filed a suit Civil Suit No 133 B of 1956 against Khushal Singh for rent due on January 1 1955 and January 1 1956 in the Court of Civil Judge Akola
On July 22 1957 the Civil Court referred the matter to the Revenue Court under section 16 A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951
On July 25 1958 the Sub Divisional Officer Akola answered the reference 365 Revenue Case No 79 of 1957 58 holding that Khushal Singh was not a protected lessee
On appeal the Deputy Collector
Akola held on October 8 1959 that Khushal Singh was a protected lessee
The Bombay Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector on March 22 1960
Sunderlal filed a petition before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution
It was numbered Special Civil Application No 232 of 1960
On February 8 1961 a compromise petition Civil Application No 163 of 1961 was filed in the High Court in Special Civil Application No 232 of 1960
It was stated in
the compromise petition that Khushal Singh did not wish to dispute Sunderlal s contention that the land was leased for horticulture purposes and that he had not acquired the status of a protected lessee as defined in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951
Khushal Singh further stated that he had no objection to the quashing of the orders of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated March 22 1960 and of the Deputy Collector dated October 8 1959
On March 11 1961 Paramsukhdas filed an application Civil Application No 246 of 1961 in the High Court in Special Civil Application No 232 of 1960 claiming to be heard
He alleged that he had obtained a decree against Khushal Singh and started execution proceedings for Rs 20013 and the amount of Rs 1364427 ordered to be paid to Khushal Singh as compensation had been attached by him for the satisfaction of his decree
He alleged that Khushal Singh and Sunderlal had mala fide entered into an agreement and had filed a compromise application asking for quashing of the orders of the Revenue Courts with the sole object of setting at naught the attachment and execution of his decree
He prayed therefore for leave to appear in the case as a party vitally interested
He further prayed that the compromise application should not be entertained and should be dismissed in the interest of justice
It appears that on March 20 1961 this application came up for hearing before the High Court
Paramsukhdas however took three weeks  more time from the High Court which was granted to him
It further appears that Paramsukhdas withdrew the said amount of Rs 13644 27 towards satisfaction of his decree
On April 18 1961 he filed another application Civil Application No 36561 wherein he stated that he had withdrawn the amount and alleged that he was now an interested party and therefore he should be joined as a party
On the same date his Advocate Mr Sohoni gave an undertaking in the following terms Mr Sohoni undertakes to hold the moneys withdrawn by his client subject to the orders of this Court on this application On August 3 1961 the High Court disposed of Civil Applica tion No 163 of 1961 Civil Application No 246 of 1961 and Civil Application No 365 of 1961
The High Court held that in LS5SCI 10 366 the circumstances we do not consider it advisable to proceed in this matter ourselves
The parties will be at liberty to file the compromise petition in the Civil Court where proceedings are pending on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act The High Court in order to safeguard the interests of the parties kept these proceedings pending till the decision on the compromise petition by the Civil Court
The compromise petition was directed to be returned to Sunderlal
On September 18 1961 Sunderlal and Khushal Singh filed applications for compromise in both the Land Acquisition references
Paramsukhdas filed applications under 0
XXII r 10 read with section 151 CPC praying that his name be substituted or added as an applicant
He alleged that the compromise was fraudulent and that Khushal Singh was abandoning the case and as an attaching creditor he was entitled to be added a party to the case
Both Khushal Singh and Sunderlal objected and by two orders dated April 9 1962 the Civil Judge rejected the applications of Paramsukhdas
He framed the issue Whether Paramsukhdas can be permitted to be substituted or added as a party to these two references He held that admittedly Paramsukhdas had not approached the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings in which the award was passed on January 30 1960
He had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer as a person interested in the land or the compensation that would be determined by the authorities
He further held that under the circumstances Paramsukhdas was not one of the persons interested in the acquired land before the Collector and he also could not be one of the persons interested in the objections under section 20b of the Act
After referring to Manjoor Ahmad vs Rajlaxmi Dasi 1 and Abu Bakar vs Peary Mohan Mukherjee 2 he hold that the scope of the reference under section 18 was limited and new questions not covered by the reference could not be entertained
He reviewed his orders on July 6 1962 but nothing turns on that in the present appeals
Paramsukhdas filed two revisions Nos 294 and 295 of 1962 before the High Court on June 30 1962
On August 22 1962 Sunderlal filed an application for withdrawal of Special Civil Application No 232 of 1960
The High Court on September 24 1962 ordered Allowed main petition dismissed as withdrawn
No costs
Before the High Court a preliminary objection was raised in Civil Revisions Nos 294 and 295 of 1962 that revisions were not competent because appeals lay against the orders of the Civil 1 AIR 1956 Cal 263
2 ILR 367 Judge
The High Court overruled this objection
Regarding the claim of Paramsukhdas to be added as a party the High Court held that his application showed that he was not claiming any interest in the lands themselves but was only claiming an interest in the compensation for the land which had been deposited in the Court for payment to the persons concerned and as such was a person interested as defined in section 3 b of the Act and he
would therefore be entitled to claim that he should be allowed to join as a party
Mr Desai contends that an attaching creditor is not interested in the amount of compensation as compensation
His interest he urges is only to get moneys belonging to the judgment debtor in enforcement of his rights and accordingly he is not entitled to be made a party to the reference under section 18 of the Act
He further contends that the Court in hearing a reference under section 18 of the Act can only deal with an objection which has been referred and cannot go into any matter beyond the reference
He con cludes if this is so even if Paramsukhdas is ordered to be added a party he would not be able to challenge the compromise between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh
The learned counsel for the respondent Mr C B Agarwala controverts these submissions
He says that Paramsukhdas is a person interested in the objection within section 20 and is a person affected by the objection within section 21 of the Act
He also relies on 0
XXII r 102 CPC which is made applicable by section 53 of the Act
Before examining the authorities cited at the Bar it is necessary to examine the scheme and the provisions of the Act insofar as they are relevant to the question of determination of compensation the question of apportionment of the compensation and the question as to the persons who are entitled to be heard
Section 3b defines the expression person interested as follows the expression person interested includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if be is interested in an easement affecting the land
 It will be noticed that it is an inclusive definition
It is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition a person should claim an interest in land which has been acquired
A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded
It seems to us that Paramsukhdas is a person interested within section 3b of the Act because he claims an interest in compensation
But before he can be made a party in a reference it has to be seen whether he comes within s 20b and s21 of the Act
LS5SCI 10a 368 The scheme of the Act seems to be to first deal with persons who are interested in land
These persons are heard under section 5A of the Act
The ordinary meaning of the person interested in land is expanded by section 5A3 for the purposes of this section to include a person who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation
It would be strange to come to the conclusion that the Legislature is keen that a person claiming an interest in compensation should be heard before the land is acquired but is not interested in him after the land is acquired
On the contrary it follows from section 5A3 that a person claiming an interest in compensation would be one of the persons whose interests are meant to be safeguarded
It appears from sections 6 to 10 that a person claiming an interest in compensation is not expressly mentioned
But in section 11 he is expressly mentioned and it is directed that the Collector shall inquire into respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award
Section 12 makes the award final and conclusive as between persons interested ie including persons claiming an interest in compensation
Under section 14 the Collector has power inter alia to summon the parties interested
Under section 18 any person interested can claim a reference
A person claiming an interest in compensation would also be entitled to claim a reference
After a reference is made the Court is enjoined under section 20 to determine the objections and serve among others all persons interested in the objection
A person claiming an interest in compensation would it seems to us be a person interested in the objection if the objection is to the amount of compensation or the apportionment of compensation and if his claim is likely to be affected by the decision on the objection
Section 21 restricts the scope of enquiry to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection
But it does not follow from section 21 that there is any restriction on the grounds which can be raised by a person affected by the objection to protect his interests
The restriction that is laid is not to consider the interests of a person who is not affected by the objection
Section 29 deals with apportionment of compensation if there is agreement and section 30 enables the Collector to refer disputes as to apportionment to the Court
From the above discussion it follows that a person claiming an interest in compensation is entitled to be heard under sections 20 and 21 of the Act
The provisions of the Act including sections 20 and 21 do not prescribe that his claim to an interest in compensation should be as compensation as urged by Mr Desai
This is really a contradictory statement
For a fortiori he has no interest in land and compensation is given for interests in land
He can never claim compensation qua compensation for what he claims is an interest in the compensation to be awarded
This is not to say that a person claiming an interest in compensation may not claim that the compensation awarded for the acquired land is low if it affects his interests 369 In the view we have taken we are supported by some autho rities
Shah J speaking for the majority in Grant vs State of Bihar1 observed The right of the State of Bihar arose on May 22 1952 when the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act
There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which prohibits the Collector from making a reference under section 30 for determination of the title of the person who has since the date of the award acquired a right to the compensation
If after a reference is made to the Court the person interested dies and his title devolves upon another person because of inheritance succession insolvency forfeiture compulsory winding up or other form of statutory transfer it would be open to the party upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom the title has devolved could have prosecuted
In Promotha Nath Mitra vs Rakshal Das Addy2 it was held that a reference made by the Collector under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act at the in stance of a proprietor of land may be prosecuted by the purchaser of his rights after the award at a revenue auction
If the right to prosecute a reference by a person on whom the title of the person interested has devolved be granted there is no reason why the right to claim a reference of a dispute about the person entitled to compensation may not be exercised by the person on whom the title has devolved since the date of the award
The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all disputes about the quantum of compensation must be decided by resort to the procedure prescribed by the Act it is also intended that disputes about the rights of owners to compensation being ancillary to the principal dispute should be decided by the Court to which power is entrusted
Jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the person who are entitled to receive compensation and there is nothing in section 30 which excludes a reference to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of land has since the award devolved
 In Golap Khan vs Bholanath Marick3 an attaching creditor was directed to be made a party to the reference under the Land 1  2 3 370 Acquisition Act before the Civil Court
Mookerjee J observed The petitioner was entitled to be added as a party not under Rule 10 but on the ground that he was a person interested in the subject matter of the litigation and that no order ought to have been made for its disposal without any opportunity afforded to him to establish his claim In Siva Pratapa Bhattadu vs AEL Mission1 an attaching creditor was held to be a person interested within section 3b of the Act
Mr Desai relies on Manjur Ahmed vs Rajlakshmi2 but in that case the point decided by the Court was different
It was held there that if a party to a land acquisition proceeding before the Collector had not obtained a reference under section 18 of the Act its representative could not do indirectly what they did not do directly ie they could not be added a party in a reference pending at the instance of other parties in order that the nil award against the party might be reversed and in order that they might be awarded a share of the compensation money
Here no such point has been raised
It has not been urged before us that Paramsukhdas was a party before the Collector and that having not applied for a reference under section 18 he is now debarred from being added as a party
The case of Gobinda Kumar Roy Chowdhury vs Debendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury3 was also decided on the same lines
Similar view was reiterated in Mahammad Safi vs Haran Chandra4
Both these cases had followed Abu Bakar vs Peary Mahan Mukerjee5
Maclean C J observed as follows in Abu Bakar vs Peary Mohan Mukerjee5
If we read that section in connection with section 20 and section 18 I think it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Legislature intended that all that the Court could deal with was the objection which had been referred to it and this seems to be a view consistent with commonsense and with the ordinary method of procedure in civil cases
The zemindar here could if he liked have raised the objection as to the whole com pensation for the trees being given to the tenants but he did not do so
He must therefore be taken to have accepted the award in that respect and it would be little less than dangerous if we were to hold that the Judge to 1 AIR 1926 Mad 307
2 AIR 1956 Cal 263
3 CWN 98
4 5 371 whom only one objection was referred could go into all sorts of questions and objections which had not been referred to him
 These three cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they are dealing with the cases of persons who having a right to seek a reference failed to claim that reference but ought to raise the point in a reference made at the instance of another party
The case of Karuna Sindhu Dhar vs Panna Lal Paramanik1 also does not assist the appellant
The High Court held in that case that as Rajmohan never claimed the entire compensation money before the Collector the Land Acquisition Judge was not entitled to vary the awards by a declaration that Rajmohan alone was entitled to get the compensation
It seems to us that Paramsukhdas was clearly a person in terested in the objections which were pending before the Court in the references made to it and that he was also a person whose interest would be affected by the objections within section 21
He was accordingly entitled to be made a party
In the result we uphold the order made by the High Court in this respect
Mr Desai says that at any rate direction should be given that Paramsukhdas should not be entitled to challenge the compromise entered into between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh
We are unable to accept this submission
Paramsukhdas is entitled to raise all points to protect his interests which were affected by the objections
It is also in the interest of justice that there should not be multifarious proceedings and all points arising which are not expressly barred under section 21 should be gone into by the Court
This leaves only the two points regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court
In our view the High Court is quite right in holding that the orders of the Civil Judge dated April 9 1962 were not awards within section 54 of the Act
The awards had still to be made
If no appeal lay then the revisions were competent and the High Court was right in entertaining the revisions because the Civil Judge had either refused to exercise jurisdiction vesting in him or had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs in favour of Respondent No 1 one hearing fee
YP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The land of the appellant was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the compensation was apportioned between the appellant and his lessee
The appellant claimed that be was entitled to the whole of the compensation while his lessee claimed a larger share
At their instance references were made to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act But before the references were made the respondent who was a decree holder against the lessee attached the lessee s share of the compensation amount in execution of his decree
Subsequently the respondent withdrew the lessee s share of the compensation amount in execution of his decree
The appellant and his lessee filed a compromise petition before the Civil Judge and the respondent also applied to be impleaded as party to the References
The Civil Judge dismissed the respondent s applications
The respondent thereupon filed revision petitions in the High Court
The High Court held 1 that the respondent was a person interested in the compensation within the meaning of section 3 b of the Land Acquisition Act and was therefore entitled to claim that he should be allowed to join as a party and ii that the revision petitions were competent
In appeal this Court Held i The respondent was a person interested  within section 3b of the Act because he was claiming an interest in the compensation
He was also interested in the objections which were pending before the Court in the references made to it and was a person whose interest would be affected by the objections
within section 21 of the Act
Accordingly he was entitled to be made a party
367H 371C D The definition of Person interested  in section 3 b is an inclusive definition and in order to fall within it it is not necessary that a person should claim an interest in the acquired land
It is sufficient if he claims an interest in the compensation to be awarded
A person claiming art interest in the compensation would be a person interested in the objections to be determined under section 20 of the Act if the objection is to the amount of compensation or the appor tionment of compensation and if his claim is likely to be affected by the decision on the objection
Under section 21 the interest  of a person who is not affected by the objection are not to be considered but if he is affected there is no restriction on the grounds which can be raised by him to protect his interest
Therefore a person claiming an interest in the compensation is entitled to be heard under Ss 20 and 21
The sections do not prescribe that his claim to an interest in compensation should be as compensation 
A person who has no interest in land can never claim compensation qua compensation for what he claims is an interest in the compensation to be
363 awarded
That is not to say that a person claiming an interest in the compensation may not claim that the compensation awarded for the acquired land is low if it affects his interests
367G H 368D H Grant vs State of Bihar   followed
Golap Khan vs Bholanath Marick  Siva Prasad Bhattadu vs AEL Mission AIR 1926 Mad
307 approved
Manjoor Ahmed vs Rajlaxmi Dasi AIR 1956 Cal
263 Abu Bakar vs Peary Mohan Mukherjee ILR  Gobinda Kumar Roy vs Debendra Kumar Roy Mahammad Safi vs Haran Chandra and Karuna Sindhu Dhar vs Panna Lai Paramanik  distinguished
ii The High Court was right in holding that the orders of the Civil Judge were not awards within the meaning of section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and as they were not awards and no appeals lay the revisions were competent and the High Court was justified in interfering as the Civil Judge refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him
371F