Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Templesingirigudi vs Union Of India & Ors.
- SCC(1996) 6 SCC 408
- Neutral1996 INSC 985
- SCR[1996] Supp (5) SCR 443
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a dispute arises as to the person entitled to receive compensation in land acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer must make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to determine the inter se title between competing claimants; the civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide questions of title to the land itself in such proceedings, nor may the Land Acquisition Officer unilaterally declare title, but must deposit the compensation amount under Section 31 and allow the reference court to adjudicate between the rival claimants to the compensation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PETITIONER: ARULMIGHU LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLESINGIRIGUDI
Vs.
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1996
BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
On the admitted facts, the approach of both the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench in the writ petition and the W.A. No. 1358/95 indicated in the impugned order made on January 30, 1996 cannot be sustained. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 was published on June 4, 1987 acquiring the land in question for the public purpose. After compliance of the notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and enquiring the award came to be passed by the land Acquisition Office on February 7,1990. The possession thereafter was taken on October 30, 1990. The question, therefore, would be what would be the proper procedure to be adopted, in case of dispute as to the title of the land acquired under the Act ? The learned single Judge declared title of the petitioner in the writ petition and the Division Bench directed civil Court to decide the title. Both views are obviously erroneous in law. The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to compensation and the compensation to be determined under Section 23 (1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dispute as to person entitled to receive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under Section 31 of the Act into the Court to which reference would lie. On such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute between the Competing persons who set up rival title to the compensation. Under those circumstances, the only legal course open is that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 30 to decide the inter se title to receive the compensation either by the appellant or by the 4th respondent, as the case may be and the reference Court would decide the matter in accordance with law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench stand set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference to the Court under Section 30. We are informed that the compensation has already been deposited in interest earning security Therefore, if the parties so require, the reference Court may be approached in this behalf or the order of the learned single Judge may conclude in force till the reference is decided in accordance with law. The latter would be the appropriate course. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free