1 cra33.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2006 1. Devalibai Nandalya Gavit, (since deceased) through L.Rs. 1A. Khatrya Nandlya Gavit, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, 1B. Suka Nandlya Gavit, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, 1C. Khetu Vijana Gavit, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, 1D. Smt. Mainubai Vasant Gavit, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, 1E. Smt. Hupdi Nandlya Gavit, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, 2. Smt. Rayalibai Ukhadya Gavit, AGE: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Keli, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Honji Rama Vasawe, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Keli, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 2. Jethibai Rama Vasawe, (since deceased). 3. The State of Maharashtra. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nandurbar. 2 cra33.06 ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Subodh Wani, Advocate holding for Mr. S.U. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Civil Revision Application is filed challenging order dated 18-02-2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, below Exhibit-1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 2000. 2. It is the case of the applicants herein that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the compensation of land bearing Gat No. 70 of village Keli. They have also sought 3 cra33.06 relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from disbursing the compensation to the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4. 3. In the said suit, it is contended by the plaintiffs that names of original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were wrongly recorded in the record of rights in Gat No. 70. It is further case of the of the applicants herein that, the plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein, have received notices of acquisition, cause of action for the suit arose when the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to receive the compensation on 01-06-2000 to the plaintiffs and defendants and on 21-06-2000 the amount of compensation was likely to be disbursed. It is further case of the applicants that the application was moved vide Exhibit-61 before the Civil Court for framing preliminary issue i.e. whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? The trial Court, after hearing both the sides, held that the said 4 cra33.06 Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and passed order below Exhibit-1 in R.C.S. No. 91 of 2000 on 18-02-2006. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Application is filed by the original defendants. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the trial Court by answering preliminary Issue in the affirmative, has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it. Subject matter of the suit is the apportionment of the compensation which can only be dealt with, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the procedure prescribed thereunder. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further submitted that notices under the Land Acquisition Act were served upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have accepted factum of notice being served upon them by Land Acquisition Officer and under such circumstances, 5 cra33.06 suit so instituted was not maintainable and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. It is further submitted that cause of action shown by the plaintiffs and the relief sought in the suit is in respect of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are alone entitled to receive amount of compensation. The reliefs which have been sought are covered by the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has misread and misconstrued provision of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. . Learned Counsel for the applicants, in support of his contention that the suit is not maintainable since the remedy is provided under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the respondents, placed reliance in the case of Comunidade of Bambolim vs. Manguesh Betu Kankonkar reported in 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 160. Therefore, 6 cra33.06 learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Civil Revision Application may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the civil suit which was filed by the plaintiffs - respondents herein was independently maintainable. The plaintiffs have filed suit seeking injunction against the applicants - original defendants. According to the Counsel, only plaintiffs are entitled for whole amount being only L.Rs. of original claimant. He further submitted that mandate of Section 30 is optional and it is not binding on the parties. Issue of title cannot be gone into by the Collector. Therefore, suit was filed by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not challenged the award, they were not aggrieved by the notice under Land Acquisition Act or apportionment of the compensation. Some and substance of the contention of the Counsel for original plaintiffs is that he is only L.R. of the original claimant 7 cra33.06 and therefore, he is entitled for the whole amount of compensation. . In support of his contention that such suit is maintainable, learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiffs placed reliance on the following judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court and Gauhatti High Court. 1. Dr. G.H. Grant vs. The State of Bihar, [A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237. 2. Asher Ali vs. Sukhna Seikh (deceased by L.R's) and others [A.I.R. 1992 Gauhati 1]. 3. Communidade of Bambolim vs. Manguesh Betu Kankonkar [2001(1) Mh.L.J. 160]. 4. Dnyaneshwar s/o Sheku Tarde vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2002(4) Mh.L.J. 612. 5. Mohandevi w/o Sohanlal Jhawar 8 cra33.06 since deceased by L.Rs. Yasoda Binnani and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others [2002(3) Mh. L.J. 820]. 7. Therefore, Counsel for the respondents would submit that Civil Revision Application may be rejected. 8. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. On plain reading of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, there is nothing which binds the party to first file objections with the Collector and then Collector to forward it to the Civil Court. Nature of reliefs which the plaintiffs have claimed in the suit in respect of entitlement for the compensation or in respect of the title may not be possible to be adjudicated before the Collector. The contention of the respondents who are original claimants is that 9 cra33.06 they are only legal heirs of original claimant and they are only entitled for compensation amount. 10. On plain reading of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, if there is any dispute between the parties about the apportionment of the compensation amount, certainly parties can approach to the Collector and then Collector can forward the said dispute to the Civil Court. The present case stands on different footing for the reasons that there is no dispute about apportionment of compensation amount as such. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that only they are entitled for the compensation amount. Therefore, in my opinion, merely because Section 30 provides option to the party to approach Collector by way of filing objection about the apportionment, and if the Collector is satisfied, the Collector will refer it to the Civil Court, is no bar to file civil suit. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 10 cra33.06 Dr. G.H. Grant vs. The State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 in para-19 held as under : " The Collector is not authorised finally to decide the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: his primarily concern is with the acquisition of the land. It is true that while determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has to apportion the amount of compensation between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether they have appeared before him or not. But the apportionment by him does not determine finally the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation:his award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the 11 cra33.06 persons interested. The Collector has no power to adjudicate finally upon the title to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under s. 18 or under s. 30 or in a separate suit. Consequently payment of compensation under s. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of its liability to pay compensation (subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right though devolved on him after the award in a reference under s.30 or by a separate suit." 12. Therefore, in my opinion, order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits. Same stands dismissed. Rule discharged. 12 cra33.06 13. It is needless to mention that parties will have to put forth their case in pending civil suit. The applicants herein who are original defendants in the suit can certainly agitate all points except point of jurisdiction. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11