9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has declared that the amount of compensation awarded by him should be paid to Jamnadas. It is an obvious conclusion that when the S. L. A. O. made that award Jamnadas' death had not been brought to his notice. On the 16th of December 1959 Notice of the Award was issued, but even that Notice was issued in the name of Jamnadas. The Notice was, however, served on Natverlal. Immediately thereafter Natverlal carried on correspondence through his Attorneys with the S. L. R. O. about the death of Jamnadas and that he was his only heir and therefore entitled to the Immovable property and therefore to the compensation in respect of the same. On the 11th of January 1960 Natverlal asked for a Reference under Section 18. By his order dated 8th June 1961 the S. L. A. O. ordered that as Natverlal was unable to produce the requisite heirship certificate as required under the Government orders, the amount compensation payable to Jamnadas should deposited in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Act. Thereafter on 8th July 1961 the S. L. A. O. made this Reference both under Section 31(2) and has deposited in this Court the amount of compensation to the credit of this Reference. (2) A question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of this sub-section makes it clear that every person who makes even a claim to an interest in the compensation is to be deemed as a person interested. By reason of that provision a person, no sooner he makes a claim, must be deemed to be a person interested , even before he established his title to the claim made by him. Section 30 provides that 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. Section 30 would come into play when a dispute arises. The dispute can be of two categories: The first category would be where the dispute is concerning the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof. Under the second category would fall disputes as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. On the plain phraseology of section 30 into play, there must exist a dispute and because of the very nature of the word used being dispute whether there must be more than one party to that dispute. The second question is as rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fourth is if there be any dispute as to apportionment of the compensation. (5) It is at this stage convenient to consider the provisions of section 30 along with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 31 and too advert to the two questions as mentioned earlier arising under section 30. If the word dispute used in section 30 is to be read as indicating that there must be two parties between whom the dispute arises, then when there is only one person making a claim before the Collector but the Collector is in doubt as to whether the claimant is entitled thereto, it would have to be held that there is no dispute within the meaning of section 30. In such an hypothetical case the second question would also arise under section 30, namely, whether as the dispute is not between more than one person but the words used in the section are as to the persons , the use of the plural would exclude the singular. The two questions are really facts of but one question because if the word dispute by itself presupposes two persons, it covers the second question, and if the word persons is construed as including a singular, it would tend to show that the word dispute by itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to happen to the amount of compensation by provide for the hypothetical contingency mentioned above. In my opinion, therefore, the word dispute as used in section 30 and in sub-section (2) of section 31 must be construed as covering the case where the Collector is unable or unwilling or has omitted to decide whether the sole claimant appearing before him is or is not entitled to the property acquired and the compensation thereof. That conclusion must be reached in spite of the fact that the natural meaning of the word dispute presupposes two persons and the word persons in plural has been used in section 30. (6) In this case as Natverlal was claiming, as the sole heir of his father, an interest in the compensation he was a person interested and was, therefore, entitled to ask for a Reference under section 18 and the Reference under section 18 has therefore validly been made. Construing the word dispute as aforesaid, as the Award does not contain any decision as to the claim made by Natverlal, it must also be held that it falls within section 30 and therefore sub-section (2) of section 31 would apply and that therefore the amount of compensation has been validly depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Award. The compensation is awarded only under the Award. Therefore, Natverlal became entitled not only to the compensation, but even to the Immovable property itself before the Award was made. If, for example, before the Award, for any reason the property was denotified from acquisition, it is the property itself which Natverlal would have got and not merely the amount of compensation in respect of the same. It is Natverlal who is the successor in title to Jamnadas became therefore entitled to appear before the S. L. A. O. to raise his contentions about the quantum of compensation and thereafter to receive the amount of compensation. It may be mentioned in passing that the award is not the result of any judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication. The award is merely an offer. The determination of the quantum of compensation is a purely administrative act. Undoubtedly, even in such an administrative determination certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act enjoin upon the Collector to give certain notices and to go through a certain procedure which ensure for the benefit of the owner of the property sought to be acquired and give him a chance to appear before the Collector a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
