Gujarat High Court
Raval Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra vs Alarakha Pirbhai Decd. Thr’Heirs on 22 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2693 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
RAVAL RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA
Versus
ALARAKHA PIRBHAI DECD. THR'HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PM BHATT(183) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.5,1.6
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 22/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate on record for the
appellant and learned AGP Mr. Shivam Dixit for the respondent-State
Authorities.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 at the instance of the original applicant-subsequent purchaser of
the land acquired, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
and order dated 08.05.2006 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Misc. Application No.57 of 2000
preferred under Section 30 of the Act, 1894.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, has invited
attention of this Court to the facts of the case. It is submitted that the
dispute pertains to the land bearing revenue survey no.592 of village-
Chuda, District- Surendranagar which initially admeasure 3 acres and
38 gunthas and was originally owned by one Alarakha Pirbhai, the
ancestor of the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. The State intended to
acquire 11 gunthas of the aforesaid parcels of land and a notification
to that effect under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the
State on 26.08.1980. The notification under Section 6 of the Act
of1894, was issued on 16.06.1982. After following due procedure of
law envisaged under the Act, an award came to be passed by the
Special Land Acquisition officer under Section 11 of the Act of 1894,
which was published on 11.09.1986. The original owner being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of the
market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, had
approached in reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was
registered before the reference court as Land Reference Case No.75
of 1987. The aforesaid reference case was heard along with group of
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
land reference case being L.R.C. Nos.38 of 1987 to 95 of 1987 and 6 of
1988.
3.1 Learned advocate has further pointed out that pending the
reference, the original owner had entered into sale transaction of the
entire parcel of land i.e. 3 acres and 38 gunthas by executing a
registered sale deed dated 18.05.1992 in favour of the present
appellant. It was further pointed out that original owner had expired
on 20.03.1995 pending the reference and out of entire land of 3 acres
and 38 gunthas, only 11 gunthas of land was subject matter of
acquisition in the pending proceedings before the reference court.
Considering the legal position, the present appellant had chosen not
to join in the reference at relevant stage. Ultimately, the reference
court by common judgment and award dated 01.07.1996 had
determined the additional amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.85,134/- for the acquired land admeasuring 11 gunthas of the land
in question. The present appellant, at relevant stage, had approached
the reference court by preferring Civil Misc. Application No.1 of 1998
before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Surendranagar on
11.03.1998, thereby contending to be the purchaser of the 11 gunthas
of the acquired land and entitlement of the additional amount of
compensation of Rs.85,134/-. The heirs of the deceased original owner
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
were joined as opponents who were heard by the learned District
Judge. The prayer of the applicant was objected by the heirs of the
deceased owner by contending that the applicant has not approached
the court with clean hands inasmuch as 11 gunthas of land has been
cut off from the holding of Alarakha on 23.12.1986 as reflected in the
revenue record. In such circumstances, what is purchased by the
applicant is only the land in holding of the deceased Alarakha to the
extent of 3 acres and 27 gunthas only. It was also pointed out that the
sale deed was executed subsequently pending the reference i.e. after
issuance of Section 4 notification, and therefore, the applicants are
not entitled towards the additional amount of compensation as the
sale deed is void ab initio and as it stood acquired by the Government
for the public purpose. The attention of the learned District Judge
was invited to Section 30 of the Act, 1894. The learned Judge, after
considering the pleading of the parties, proceeded to frame the
following issues:
“(1) Whether the applicant established that he is
entitled to receive payment of Rs.85,134/-
satnding in the name of Alarakha under the Sale-
Deed dt. 18-05-02?
(2) What order?”
3.2 Upon appreciation of the record in light of the submissions
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
made by the respective parties, the learned Judge disallowed the
application with cost to be awarded to the heirs of deceased Alarakha
holding that the applicant could have purchased the remaining land to
the extent of 3 acres and 27 gunthas only. Section 144 (A) of the Land
Acquisition Act prohibits the transfer of land acquired under the Act.
The applicant chose not to join as party to the reference proceedings
on the basis of such claim being made for payment of the additional
amount of compensation. The learned Judge, therefore, arrived at a
conclusion that the applicant has failed to establish that Alarakha has
concealed the fact about acquisition of the land and having purchased
such land which had already stood acquired, the applicant was held
not entitled to claim any payment of the additional amount of
compensation.
3.3 According to the learned advocate, the learned Judge
committed serious error in recording such finding on misconception of
provisions of law. The learned advocate has submitted that in fact, the
first application which was moved directly before the learned District
Judge with a prayer to seek withdrawal of the deposited additional
amount of compensation, was based on the registered sale deed
dated 18.05.1992. The copy of such sale deed has been placed on
record, wherein it clearly transpires that not only the land
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
admeasuring 3 acres 27 gunthas was purchased by the appellant but
also the land acquired admeasuring as 0 acres 11 gunthas was
purchased by the appellant. Merely because the registered sale deed
has been executed by the appellant was subsequently entered upon
after the acquisition proceedings having attained finality, would not
preclude the appellant from entitlement of the additional amount of
compensation. In this regard, the learned advocate has placed reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.
Jal Nigam, Lucknowt hrough Its Chairman vs. Kalra Properties
Private Limited, Lucknow reported in 1996 (3) SCC 124. It is held that
though the purchaser of the land after notification stands void and
the purchaser acquires no right, interest of the title in land, at the
most, the purchaser cannot challenge the notification or irregularity in
taking possession, but he would be entitled to the compensation. The
reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Meera Sahni vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors reported in
2008 (9) SCC 177. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the
various decisions, held that it is now well settled law that under the
Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get
compensation. While referring to the aforesaid legal position, learned
advocate emphasize that the order passed by the learned District
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
Judge while not entertaining his application for seeking payment of
the additional amount of compensation was against settle principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid approach of
the learned District Judge, the appellant at relevant stage, had
approached in appeal before this court. Considering the aforesaid
aspect, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.07.2000 passed in First
Appeal No. 7815 of 1999, found that since there is a dispute about
compensation, the correct approach would be to apply in reference
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, permitted the appellant
to withdraw the First Appeal. Accordingly, the appellant had preferred
an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which was
registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 57 of 2000 before the court of
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar. On 08.05.2006,
the learned Principal Civil Judge disallowed such application on the
ground that since the earlier application being Civil Misc. Application
No.1 of 1998 has been decided on merits by his predecessor learned
Assistant Judge, the same cannot be re-examined. At this stage,
learned advocate has invited attention of this Court to the reasons
assigned by the learned Judge while not entertaining his application
under Section 30 of the Act. Learned advocate has, therefore,
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
submitted that though Court was vested with the jurisdiction to
decide the dispute with regard to apportionment of the award
amount as prescribed under Section 30 of the Act, chose not to decide
such application on irrelevant grounds. He has, therefore, submitted
that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is
required to be quashed and set aside, and has prayed for appropriate
directions to permit the present appellant to withdraw the amount of
compensation which is deposited with the concerned reference court.
3.5 The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India vs Shivkumar Bhargava
And Ors reported in 1995 (2) SCC 427, laying down the principle that
the person who purchases the land subsequent to the notification,
cannot be treated as owner for the purpose of allotment; however,
they are certainly entitled to claim compensation by virtue of the sale
deed being executed in their favour. The reference was also made to
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-Operative Housing Society
Jaipur and Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1226, which
reiterates the legal position that purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition and can only seek compensation.
Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined 3.6 Lastly, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash
Agarwal vs. Gopi Krishnan (Dead Through Lrs.) reported in 2013 (11)
SCC 296. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has distinguished the remedy
available to the subsequent purchaser, wherein it is clearly held that a
person who has not made an application before the Land Acquisition
Officer, cannot apply directly before the reference court under
Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act, if the person is aggrieved he
may maintain an application for reference under Section 18 or under
Section 30 of the Act before the Collector. Learned advocate has,
therefore, prayed to allow the appeal, and to pass consequential
orders of payment of the deposited award amount.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Shivam Dixit appearing for the respondent-
State Authorities has vehemently objected to the aforesaid
submissions. At the outset, learned AGP Mr. Dixit has placed reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors.
delivered in Civil Appeal No.3621 of 2023 dated 18.05.2023, to
contend that the subsequent purchaser after Section 4 notification
has not been given any right to receive the higher compensation in
light of the provisions contained in the Act of 2013. By referring to the
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
aforesaid decision, the learned AGP has submitted that the provisions
under the old Act of 1894 any sale transaction effected after Section 4
Notification is treated as void ineffective to transfer the acquired land
and the similar provision appears in the Act of 2013, which does not
confer any right on the purchaser whose sale is void ab initio. He
therefore, submitted that the present appellant being a subsequent
purchaser after Section 4 notification is not entitled to receive the
higher compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1894. The
attention of this Court was invited to the reasons assigned by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge by not entertaining the application
filed under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. By referring to the reasons
assigned, the learned AGP has submitted that no error can be found
with the approach of the learned Judge in holding that the earlier
application made with similar relief has not been entertained by
recording cogent reasons. Hence, the learned Judge in subsequent
application moved under Section 30 of the Act would have no
jurisdiction to re-examine such issue as it was binding on him. He has
also pointed out that findings have been recorded by the learned
Judge in the earlier proceedings with regard to the ownership of the
appellant vis-a-vis acquired land. It was also pointed out that in fact,
after 1986, 11 gunthas of acquired land went into cut off from the
holding of the predecessor of the present appellant, and therefore, no
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
right, title or interest has passed over in favour of the present
appellant with regard to the acquired land. He has, therefore,
objected to the present appeal and the consequential relief sought
for.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates
for the respective parties and having perused the record in light of the
submissions made, at the outset, the court notices that the heirs of
the deceased owner have been joined as party respondents in the
present proceedings as well, however, they have chosen not to appear
and contest the present appeal. This Court considering the grounds
raised in the appeal, vide order dated 07.10.2006, had admitted the
appeal and had granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 4(A) of the
application for stay, thereby the disbursement of the award amount as
deposited before the reference court has been stayed pending the
appeal. During the course of the argument, learned advocate for the
appellant has submitted that the amount has been lying idle and has
not been invested so far.
6. Now, considering the submissions made by learned advocates
for the respective parties, the only question which falls for
consideration of this Court is, whether the learned Judge committed
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
any error in not entertaining the application preferred by the present
appellant under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the
facts of the case. Considering the prayer made in the application,
which was registered as Civil Misc. Application No.1 of 1998 before the
learned Assistant Judge and the order passed thereon, it transpires
that the only prayer which was sought for in the aforesaid application
was with regard to withdrawal of the amount of compensation of
Rs.85,134/- deposited with the reference court by the present
appellant. The heirs of the deceased owner were joined as party
respondents in the aforesaid proceedings who had appeared before
the learned Assistant Judge and had contested such application.
Admittedly such application though prayed for withdrawal of the
amount, was not under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 30
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under:
“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.”
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
8. The plain reading of the aforesaid Section indicates that when a
dispute arises with regard to the apportionment of the amount of
compensation as settled under Section 11 or any part thereof or with
regard to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is to be
paid, the Collector may refer such dispute for the decision of the
court. Indisputably, the first application was directly preferred by the
applicant before the learned Assistant Judge without any reference
from the Collector. The learned Judge unfortunately failed to take
into consideration the registered sale deed which was placed on
record and proceeded to rely upon revenue entry to arrive at a
conclusion that the part of the land i.e. the acquired land admeasuring
is 0 acres 11 gunthas stood cut off from the holding of the original
owner-deceased Alarakha and the sale deed was executed
subsequently. It appears that learned Judge has given undue
weightage to the revenue entries as against the registered sale deed
without appreciating the nature of relief sought for. As rightly pointed
out by learned advocate for the appellant, the subsequent purchaser
after Section 4 notification is though not entitled to challenge the
acquisition proceedings nor he is entitled to move in reference under
Section 18 for claiming additional amount of compensation; however,
he is not precluded from seeking apportionment of the amount of
compensation as may be determined by the Special Land Acquisition
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
Officer under Section 11 of the Act or by the reference court under
Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The learned Judge ought to have
appreciated that the only limited prayer was with regard to the
withdrawal of the deposited award amount, and not the challenge to the
acquisition proceedings or praying for enhancement of compensation.
9. Even otherwise, the nature of proceedings under Section 30 of the
Act as against under Section 18 of the Act, confers wide power upon the
Collector to refer dispute as regards apportionment of the amount of
compensation. Appropriate would be refer the Full Bench decision of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Repaka Bhyravamurthy And
Another vs Muppidi Venkataraju And Others reported in 2001 SCC
OnLine AP 767. The relevant observation reads thus:
“29. Section 30 confers a wide power upon the Collector to
refer a dispute as regards the apportionment of the amount of
compensation or where a dispute arises as to persons to whom
the same or any part thereof is payable. The Collector,
therefore, has two options viz., (1) to enquire into the rights of
the persons interested claiming the compensation in terms of
section 11 (which incidentally used the word ‘shall’) or (2) refer
the same to the decision of the Court. ….
31. The power of reference under section 30 is wider than the
power of reference under section 18. Can it in this situation be
said that a person who did not appear before the Land
Acquisition Officer has no locus standi to get himself impleaded
as a party? The answer to the same must be rendered having
regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. A person
may not appear either having not been issued any notice or
otherwise before the Collector and still his interest may be
protected by the Collector and an award can be passed in his
favour. However, an enquiry made by the Collector under
section 11 of the Act cannot be held to have such a
repercussion with those who had not been found to bePage 14 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
interested in the claims as they would not have say at all.
However, a subsequent discovery or question of interest as
regard the entitlement to receive the compensation or a part of
it by reason of a subsequent event, in our opinion, may give rise
to a situation where an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
may be maintainable. The devolution of such interest may not
be confined to the situation contained in Section 146 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, more so, when a question of title is
involved. …
37. In a reference under section 30, not only the question of
title, but also the status of the parties may be involved. Order 1,
Rule 10 confers a wide power upon the Court. …….
46…..In Ajjam Linganna (supra), the parties applied directly to
the reference Court for impleadment and sought for
enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act.
In that situation, it was held that they should have approached
for reference in the first instance. The Apex Court observed
that appellant No. 1 made such application. In that case before
the Apex Court, the parties had not appeared before the Land
Acquisition Collector. Thus, the Apex Court has also directed
impleadment of one of the parties who had only made prayer
for reference although she had not appeared before the Land
Acquisition Collector……”
10. Against the order and judgment in the Repaka (supra) case, a
Special Leave Petition was preferred. By its order dated 14.12.2001,
the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court
directing as follows :
“Allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not
tantamount to adjudicating the rights of the impleaded
person. We are not inclined accordingly to interfere with
the impugned order. Taken on Board. The SLP is
dismissed.”
11. Having noted so, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge again
committed an error in not entertaining the application under Section 30
of the Land Acquisition Act on the erroneous ground by observing that in
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2693/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
the earlier proceedings, his predecessor Judge had already opined on
merits of the case with regard to entitlement of the amount of
compensation.
12. In my view, the legal position as regards the entitlement of the
amount of compensation, even in case of subsequent purchaser, is well
settled in light of various authorities relied upon by learned advocate for
the appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by
learned Judge on misconception of the law and facts of the case calls for
interference, and is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Resultantly, the appellant succeeds in the appeal. The prayer
sought for in the application for withdrawal of the deposited amount of
compensation is hereby permitted in favour of the present appellant-
original applicant. The reference court is directed to release and disburse
the deposited amount of compensation in favour of the present
appellant-original applicant, after due verification, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
14. With these observations and directions, present appeal stands
allowed, in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
15. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court
forthwith.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:38:02 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link