2003 (1) TMI 724 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Competency of reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Determination of 'person interested' under the Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in land acquisition disputes.
4. Rights of the State in land acquisition proceedings.

Summary:

Competency of Reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The core question was whether a reference u/s 30 of the Act was competent when the State, assuming the land belonged to a particular person, sought a reference on the premise that the land was owned by the State. The Court examined the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and concluded that the State is not a 'person interested' as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. The State cannot seek a reference u/s 30 for land it claims to own, as the land acquisition process does not apply to land already vested in the State. The reference made by the Collector to the Court was deemed wholly without jurisdiction, and all proceedings under Section 30 were declared null and void.

Determination of 'Person Interested' under the Act:
The term 'person interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation due to land acquisition. The Government is not considered a 'person interested' within this definition. The Court cited previous judgments, including Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, to emphasize that the State cannot claim compensation for land it already owns. The Court reiterated that the award by the Collector is final and conclusive between the Collector and the 'persons interested' but not among the 'persons interested' inter se.

Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Land Acquisition Disputes:
The Court clarified that the Collector's power to make a reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act is distinct and non-overlapping. Section 18 allows references for disputes regarding land measurement, compensation amount, and apportionment among 'persons interested.' Section 30 pertains to disputes about apportionment or entitlement to compensation. The Civil Court's jurisdiction is limited to the matters referred by the Collector, and it cannot adjudicate on the State's pre-existing rights in the land.

Rights of the State in Land Acquisition Proceedings:
The Court held that the State does not acquire its own land through the Land Acquisition Act, as it would be redundant to acquire rights already vested in the State. The State's interest in land is not subject to acquisition, and any dispute regarding the State's pre-existing rights cannot be referred to the Civil Court under Sections 18 or 30. The Court noted that the State could pursue other legal remedies if necessary, but the current proceedings under Section 30 were invalid.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and restoring the learned Single Judge's decision. The Court emphasized that the State's claim to the land could not be adjudicated under the Land Acquisition Act and must be pursued through other legal avenues if applicable.