Case: Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State Of Bihar

possession of the land after an award of compensation is made. This is also supported by the scheme of the Act. Interest is made payable under S. 28 on the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Court from the date on which the Collector had taken possession. Similarly under S. 34 interest is made payable on the compensation from the date on which the possession is taken, if the same be not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land. 17. 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 S. 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 v. Rakhal Das Addy, 11 Cal LJ 420, it was held that a reference made by the Collector under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance 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. 18. 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 persons who are entitled to receive compensation, and there is nothing in S. 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. 19. It was strongly pressed that under S. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto according to the award and that implied that a right in the amount of compensation arises to the person to whom compensation is directed to be paid under the award, and, therefore, the only persons who can raise a dispute under S. 30 are those whose names are set out in the award. This contention stands refuted by the plain terms of S. 30.The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, 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 or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate 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. Payment of compensation, therefore, under S. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State or its liability to pay compensation (Subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under S. 30 or by a separate suit. 20. The dispute between the State of Bihar and Dr. Grant has been expressly referred by the Collector to the Court for decision. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of Dr. Grant to the land notified for acquisition became vested in the State, and, therefore, the right to compensation for the land acquired devolved upon the State. A dispute between Dr. Grant and the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which could be referred under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court and was in fact referred to the Court. We are unable to agree with counsel for Dr. Grant that the reference made by the Collector under S. 30 was incompetent, because the State was not interested in the compensation money on the date when the award was made. The right of the State of Bihar has undoubtedly arisen after the award was made, but once the title which was originally vested in Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred to the State, it was open to the State to claim a reference, not because the State was a person interested in the compensation money before the date of the award, but because of the right which has arisen since the award was made. 21. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals with costs. There will be one hearing fee. ORDER

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Mysore High Court in Boregowda v. Subbaramiah, AIR 1959 Mys 265, that if the Collector has made apportionment of the compensation money by his award his power to refer a dispute under S. 30 cannot be exercised. Clause (iii) of S. 11 enjoins the Collector to apportion the compensation money among persons known or believed to be interested in the land: he has no discretion in the matter. Exercise of the power under S. 30 to refer the dispute relating to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable is, it is true, discretionary: the Collector may, but is not bound to exercise that power. It is however not predicated of the exercise of that power that the collector has not apportioned the compensation money by his award. We are also unable to agree with the Mysore High Court that the power under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be exercised on a motion within the period prescribed by S. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.In our judgment the powers exercisable by the Collector under S. 18(1) and under S. 30 are distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap15. By virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act the right of Dr. Grant vested in the State of Bihar. On March 25, 1952 when the Collector made an award under S. 11, the only persons interested in the award were Dr. Grant and the members of the village community, but the title of Dr. Grant in the land notified for acquisition stood, by operation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, transferred as from May 22, 1952 to the State of Bihar. A dispute then arose between the State Government and Dr. Grant "as to the persons to whom" compensation was payable. The State had no right to the compensation payable for the land under a title existing before the date of the award of the Collector, and no application for reference could be made by the State, as a person interested within the meaning of S. 18 (1). The title of the State to receive compensation arose only when in consequence of the notification under S. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of Dr. Grant to the Estate was divested16. An award by the Collector is strictly speaking an offer made to the person interested in the land notified for acquisition: the latter may accept the offer, but is not bound to accept it. He may ask for a reference to the Court for adjudication of his claim for adequate compensation. The person interested may even accept the compensation under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount and ask for a reference. It is also open to the Government, even after the award is made, but before possession is taken, to withdraw from acquisition of any land in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is, therefore, not the award of the Collector which is the source of the right to compensation; the award quantifies the offer of the appropriate Government, which is made because the Government has taken over, or intends to take the land of the owner under the authority conferred by the Land Acquisition Act17. 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 S. 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 prosecutedThis contention stands refuted by the plain terms of S. 30.The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, 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 or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate 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. Payment of compensation, therefore, under S. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State or its liability to pay compensation (Subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under S. 30 or by a separate suit20. The dispute between the State of Bihar and Dr. Grant has been expressly referred by the Collector to the Court for decision. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the title of Dr. Grant to the land notified for acquisition became vested in the State, and, therefore, the right to compensation for the land acquired devolved upon the State. A dispute between Dr. Grant and the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which could be referred under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court and was in fact referred to the Court. We are unable to agree with counsel for Dr. Grant that the reference made by the Collector under S. 30 was incompetent, because the State was not interested in the compensation money on the date when the award was made. The right of the State of Bihar has undoubtedly arisen after the award was made, but once the title which was originally vested in Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred to the State, it was open to the State to claim a reference, not because the State was a person interested in the compensation money before the date of the award, but because of the right which has arisen since the award was made.