THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11672 OF 2011 DATED: 12.07.2011 Between : Sri Jitendar Kumar Kedia … Petitioner And 1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, Hyderabad., and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11672 OF 2011 ORDER : On a requisition made by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for acquisition of certain properties for widening of the road from Narayanaguda junction to Musheerabad junction, an extent of 308.37 sq. yards situated in the premises bearing No. 1-7- 1069/1, Musheerabad was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 6.11.2007 followed by declaration under Section 6, dated 5.11.2008. By award dated 30.10.2010 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs.1,30,09,441/- towards compensation. The award was passed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and his mother Smt. Manjula Varshini. While the compensation amount was about to be disbursed, the writ petitioner, who is the brother of the 2nd respondent, filed an objection petition before the 1st respondent claiming that the premises bearing No.1-7-1069/1 was the joint family property and therefore all the members of the family were equally entitled to receive the compensation amount. While contending that 1/5th of the compensation shall be paid to him towards his share, the 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent to pay the said amount to him or in the alternative to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act, to the appropriate Civil Court. Alleging that the 1st respondent failed to consider his request for reference under Section 30 of the Act, this writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petition that in view of the differences between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with regard to the joint family properties, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.4568 of 2009 in the Court of the III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction and the temporary injunction granted by the Court is in operation. Similarly O.S.No.4875 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the XIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and O.S.No.464 of 2011 on the file of the Court of XIX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, filed by him for injunction against the 2nd respondent and others were also pending adjudication. While claiming that the petitioner’s claim for a share in the joint family property is the subject- matter of the suits pending before the competent Civil Courts, it is contended by the petitioner that in view of the disputes existing as to the title of the property in question, the 1st respondent is bound to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is explained that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of road-widening and the award was passed on 30.10.2010 following due process of law in favour of the 2nd respondent and his mother basing on the title deeds produced by them. It is also stated that as per the two registered documents dated 8.8.2005 produced by them, the 2nd respondent and his mother were having equal shares in the said property and therefore award was passed equally in their favour. It is also stated that the petitioner who did not participate either in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act or during award enquiry is not entitled to raise any objection after the award was passed. It is further stated that 50% of the compensation awarded was already paid to Smt. Manjula Varshini, the mother of the 2nd respondent, on 15.2.2011 by way of cheque. While stating that no rival claims were received from anybody during the award enquiry and that as per GHMC records, House No.1-7-1069/1/A stands mutated in the name of the 2nd respondent and Smt. Manjula Varshini and the title deeds produced by them established their title, it is contended that the petitioner failed to make out any case for reference under Section 30 of the Act. The 2nd respondent in his counter-affidavit categorically denied the claim of the petitioner that House No.1-7-1069/1, Musheerabad, Hyderabad is the joint family property and that the petitioner is entitled to 1/5th share in the compensation. It is further stated that he along with his mother Manjula Varshini are the absolute owners of the property in question. It is further contended that the fact that the petitioner could not produce any material to substantiate his claim that it is the joint family property itself shows that his claim is false and without any basis. I have heard Sri L. Ravichander, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the 1st respondents and Sri K.S.R. Murthy the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon UNION OF INDIA v. PRAMOD GUPTA[1], SHYAMALI DAS v. ILLA CHOWDHRY[2], MEHER RUSI DALAL v. UNION OF INDIA[3], DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BHOLA NATH SHARMA[4], MEHER RUSI DALAL v. UNION OF INDIA[5], STATE OF A.P. v. NAGOTI VENKATARAMANA[6], SHARDA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR[7], P.K. SREEKANTAN v. P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR[8], SURENDRA KUMAR v. PHOOLCHAND[9] and GHANT v. STATE OF BIHAR[10] vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the 1st respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the decision of the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that as the petitioner’s claim that the property belongs to the joint family property and that he is entitled to 1/5th share is without any basis, the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is not necessary. For proper appreciation of the rival submissions made by the parties, it is necessary to refer to Section 30 of the Act which reads as under: “S.30. Dispute as to apportionment:- 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.” On a plain reading of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that a person who is not a party to the proceedings can also ask for reference under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation or the dispute as to the person to whom the compensation is payable. Hence the petitioner’s request for reference under Section 30 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he did not participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act or in the award enquiry. However the law is well-settled that the Collector is not bound to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act when so applied for, but he has the jurisdiction to enquire into the respective claims and determine the disputed claims and disputed questions of title as well. It is also open to him to refer the dispute to the Civil Court for decision if he is of the opinion that the dispute as to the title or apportionment involves complicated questions of fact or law and that it is desirable that the said question should be enquired into by the Civil Court. The scope of power vested in the Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act has been explained by the Apex Court in SHARDA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR[11] as under: “Under Section 18 of the Act the Collector does not have power to withhold the reference. Once a written application has been made satisfying the requirements of Section 18, the Collector shall make a reference. The Collector has no discretion in the matter; whether the dispute has any merit or not is to be left for the determination of the Court. Under Section 30 the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. The Collector has discretion in the matter. Looking to the nature of the dispute raised, the person who is raising the dispute, the delay in inviting the attention of the Court, and so on are such illustrative factors which may enter into the consideration by the Collector while exercising the discretion. If the Collector makes the reference it may be decided by the Court subject to its forming an opinion that the dispute was capable of reference and determination under Section 30 of the Act. In case the Collector refuses to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act, the person adversely affected by withholding of the reference or refusal to make the reference shall be at liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available to him under the law such as filing a writ petition or a civil suit.” In the instant case, the premises in question admittedly stands in the name of the 2nd respondent and his mother. Even in the records of the GHMC, the names of the 2nd respondent and his mother alone are recorded as owners. Their names were shown in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and having participated in the award enquiry, they had established their title to the property. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that the property in question belongs to a joint family to which he is a member, he could not produce any material before the 1st respondent to substantiate his claim. It is relevant to note that the civil suits stated to be pending between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are all suits for injunction in respect of different properties. It is not the case of the petitioner that any suit for partition is pending in respect of the property in question or at least with regard to the other properties which are claimed to have been acquired by the father of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is justified in contending that there is no need to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. The 1st respondent undoubtedly has the jurisdiction to make such a determination when the matter does not involve complicated questions of fact or law. Since the 2nd respondent failed to produce even before this Court any material to substantiate his claim for 1/5th share in the compensation, no Mandamus can be issued compelling the 1st respondent to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. It is true that as held in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no time limit was provided to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act and therefore it is not open to the 1st respondent to contend that the 2nd respondent was not entitled to seek reference since he never participated in the proceedings either under Section 5-A or in the award enquiry. However in none of the decisions cited it was held that the Collector was bound to make a reference under Section 30 once a request is received for such reference. On the other hand, it has been consistently laid down that the dispute has to be referred to the Civil Court for decision where the Collector is of the opinion that the dispute as to the title or apportionment involves complicated questions of fact or law. As expressed above, as the petitioner failed to make out any case to show that the property in question is a joint family property and on the other hand, since the 2nd respondent has successfully established his title to the said property, the 1st respondent cannot be held to have committed any error in declining to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.07.2011 gbs [1] (2005) 12 SCC 1 [2] (2006) 12 SCC 300 [3] (2004) 7 SCC 362 [4] AIR 2011 SC 428 [5] AIR 2004 SC 3491 [6] (1996) 6 SCC 408 [7] AIR 2003 SC 942 [8] AIR 2007 SC 516 [9] AIR 1996 SC 1148 [10] AIR 1966 SC 237 [11] AIR 2003 SC 942