S.S. Kang, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Faridabad Complex Administration for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated August 16, 1977, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, and the consequential order dated March 2, 1978, passed by the Collector.
2. It has been filed in the following circumstances:
764 Kanals 10 Marlas of land situate in village Lakarpur, Tehsil Balabgarh, District Gurgaon, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide a notification dated March 22, 1972. The Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 2, proceeded to assess compensation for this land. He issued notices to the proprietors of lands of village Lakarpur. No notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act'') had been issued to the petitioner although the land in dispute had come to vest in it by virtue of the provisions of section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short `the Regulation Act''). This fact is borne out by Jamabandi entries. Similarly in view of the provisions of section 2(g) of the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974, the ownership of the land, in dispute, vested in the petitioner. Previously village Lakarpur was included within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat of village Anangpur.
On coming to know about the acquisition proceedings pending before the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner filed an application praying that the compensation assessed in respect of the land, in dispute, be paid to the petitioner and if there was any dispute as to the title of the land, in dispute and the compensation, then the matter be referred to the Civil Court under section 30 of the Act, for adjudication. The Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 2, thereupon made a reference to the Civil Court, Gurgaon, under section 30 of the Act vide a reference dated April, 4, 1977. The matter was then taken up for adjudication by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who held that it was imperative on the Collector to have summoned the rightholders of Thok Gujran when he had received an application from the petitioner claiming compensation for the land, in dispute. They may have come forward to have conceded the case of the petitioner. In that case, there would have been no occasion to determine apportionment of the compensation. He observed that the existence of dispute between the rival parties is a condition precedent to the making of a reference to the District Court under section 30 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the learned Judge, the Collector was not justified to conclude that there had arisen a dispute before him as to the entitlement of compensation. Consequently, he dismissed the reference and returned the papers to the Land Acquisition Collector alongwith a copy of his orders so that the latter may proceed further in the matter only in accordance with law. After the receipt of the papers, the learned Collector vide orders dated March 2, 1978, decided the question of the petitioner''s title to the compensation against it. He held that the land had not come to vest in the petitioner. It was the property of rightholders of Shamilat Thok Gujran and they were to be paid compensation for the acquired land in accordance with their shares in the land, in dispute, as per entries in the revenue records. Aggrieved by these two orders (Annexures P.4 and P.5), the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. In order to determine the controversy it is apt to read section 30 of the Act at the very threshold :
"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 decisions of the Court".
The Final Court had an occasion to interpret the provisions of section 30 of the Act in Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, A.I.R., 1966 Supreme Court 237, wherein it was held:
"There are two provisions, Ss. 18(1) and 30 of the Act which invest the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. The Collector is enjoined under S. 18(1) to refer a dispute relating to apportionment, or title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub S.(2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. The Collector is authorised under S.30 to refer to the Court after compensation is set under S.11, and dispute relating to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or relating to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person who is shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation and who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice is served under subS. (2) of S.12, if he does not accept the award, must apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under subS.(2) of S.18 to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector, if he is not served with notice of the filing, may raise a dispute relating to apportionment or to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference under S.30 for the determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the award. Under S. 18 an application made to the Collector has to be made within the period prescribed by Cl. (b) of subS. (2) of S. 18. But no such period is prescribed under S.30. Again whereas under S. 18 the Collector is bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person interested, the Collector is, under S 30, not enjoined to make a reference; he may relegate the person raising the dispute to agitate the same in suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared by his award. The powers which are exercised by the Collector under S. 18(1) and under S.30 are distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap. ... ... ...
The Collector is not authorised finally to decide the conflicting right of the persons interested in the amount of compensation, his primary concern is with the acquisition of the land. ... ... ... ".
4. The petitioner had filed an application before the Collector claiming compensation of the land, in dispute. The rightholders of Thok Gujran were also staking a claim to that compensation. A dispute had arisen before the Collector regarding the payment of the compensation for the acquired land. The learned District Judge was not correct when he observed that there was no dispute before the Collector regarding the compensation assessed. When two rival claimants make claims to a property, a dispute naturally arises. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the Collector or refer the dispute to the Civil Court. He rightly did so in the present case. The approach and the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge are wholly unsustainable in law. The order dated March 2, 1978, (Annexure P.5) of the learned Land Acquisition Collector is a consequential order passed in pursuance of the order (Annexure P.4)
5. Consequently, I allow this writ petition, quash orders (Annexures P.4 and P.5) and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, within whose jurisdiction now the property in dispute falls, for decision. The learned District Judge may either decide the case himself or he may assign it to some other Additional District Judge. Their shall, however, be no order as to costs.
6. In order to dispel the doubts entertained by the private respondents, it is made clear that the learned Civil Court to whom the case is entrusted for decision, shall also go into the question as to whether the land, in dispute, vests in the petitioner or not.
