# DR. G. B. GRANT v. STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 576
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-03-30
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA R.Ao, J. C. Shah, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-g-b-grant-v-state-of-bihar-3516
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. II, 18, Ja-Bihar Land Reforms Act,
l950, s. 3-Award fi;rinp compenaation for land acquired-Land Reform-Acquired land vestinp in State-State whether entitled to
compensation under award-Reference under s. 30 to decide claim of
State whether competent.
·
The appellant owned certain lands in the State of Bihar in respect of which proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were
started. Under s. II of the Act the Collector fixed the area of the land
to be acquired and the compensation payable, and also apportioned
the compensation between the appellant and the members of the
vHlage community who had claimed compensation for some portions
of the land. The award was then filed under s. 12. The appellant and
members of the village community being dissatisfied asked the Collector to make reference• under s. 18 to the Court. After the award was
given but before possession under s. 16 of the Act was taken the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was passed and by the operation of
s. 3 of the Act the appellant's land became vested in the State. On
behalf of the State an application wa• made to the Collector to make
a reference to the Court under s. 30 of the Act claimin~ that the
compensation under the award was payable to it as it had acquired
the appellant's title to the land. The District Court held that the
compensation was not payable to the State but, on appeal, the High
Court held in favour of the State. The appellant came to this Court
with certificate.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the O>llector
had no authority to refer the matter under s: 30 after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under s. II; (2) since title to compensation is derived solely from and on the date of the award, the
notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act did not deprive
the appellant of his right to receive compensation; and (3) the State
Government was not 'a person interested' within the meaning of the
Land Acquisition Act, and could not apply for a reference under s. 30.
HELD: Per Shah and Bachawat, JJ.-ii) There are two provisiol'IS
in the Act under which the Collector can make a reference to the
Court, namely. s. 18 and s. 30. The powers under the two sections are
distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap.
A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation who is present either personally or through a
representative or on whom notice is issued under s. 12(2), must, if he
does not accept the award, apply to the Collector to refer the matter
to the Court under s. 18 within the time prescribed thereunder. But a
person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings before
tlie Collector may, if he is not served with notice of filing, raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable
and apply to the Court for a reference under s. 30, for determination
of his right to compensation which may have existed before the
awan.l. or which may have devolved upon him since the award. For
a reference under s. 30 no period of limitatio:i is prescribed. [583E584A]
~76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
G. H. GRANT ti. SrATE
577
(ii) It is not predicated of the exercise of the power to make a
reference under s. 30 that the Collector has not apportioned the compensation money by his award. [584D]
Boregowda and Anr. v. Subbaramiah and Ors., A.I.R.
(1959)
Mysore, 265, disapproved.
(iii) The award made by the .Collector under s.
~1 is not the
source of the right to compensat10n. An award Is stncUy speakmg
only an offer made by th~ .Government to the person mterested m
the land notified for acqmsit10n; the person mterested IS not bo<:nd
to accept it and the Government can also \V1thdraw the acqu1s1t1on
under s. 48. It is only when possession of the land has been taken by
the Government under s. 16 that the right of the owner of the land
is extinguished. Therefore the appellant's contention that title to
compensation i

## Text

DR. G. B. GRANT
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
March 30, 1965
[K. SUBBA R.Ao, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. II, 18, Ja-Bihar Land Reforms Act,
l950, s. 3-Award fi;rinp compenaation for land acquired-Land Reform-Acquired land vestinp in State-State whether entitled to
compensation under award-Reference under s. 30 to decide claim of
State whether competent.
·
The appellant owned certain lands in the State of Bihar in respect of which proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were
started. Under s. II of the Act the Collector fixed the area of the land
to be acquired and the compensation payable, and also apportioned
the compensation between the appellant and the members of the
vHlage community who had claimed compensation for some portions
of the land. The award was then filed under s. 12. The appellant and
members of the village community being dissatisfied asked the Collector to make reference• under s. 18 to the Court. After the award was
given but before possession under s. 16 of the Act was taken the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was passed and by the operation of
s. 3 of the Act the appellant's land became vested in the State. On
behalf of the State an application wa• made to the Collector to make
a reference to the Court under s. 30 of the Act claimin~ that the
compensation under the award was payable to it as it had acquired
the appellant's title to the land. The District Court held that the
compensation was not payable to the State but, on appeal, the High
Court held in favour of the State. The appellant came to this Court
with certificate.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the O>llector
had no authority to refer the matter under s: 30 after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under s. II; (2) since title to compensation is derived solely from and on the date of the award, the
notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act did not deprive
the appellant of his right to receive compensation; and (3) the State
Government was not 'a person interested' within the meaning of the
Land Acquisition Act, and could not apply for a reference under s. 30.
HELD: Per Shah and Bachawat, JJ.-ii) There are two provisiol'IS
in the Act under which the Collector can make a reference to the
Court, namely. s. 18 and s. 30. The powers under the two sections are
distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap.
A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation who is present either personally or through a
representative or on whom notice is issued under s. 12(2), must, if he
does not accept the award, apply to the Collector to refer the matter
to the Court under s. 18 within the time prescribed thereunder. But a
person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings before
tlie Collector may, if he is not served with notice of filing, raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable
and apply to the Court for a reference under s. 30, for determination
of his right to compensation which may have existed before the
awan.l. or which may have devolved upon him since the award. For
a reference under s. 30 no period of limitatio:i is prescribed. [583E584A]
~76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
G. H. GRANT ti. SrATE
577
(ii) It is not predicated of the exercise of the power to make a
reference under s. 30 that the Collector has not apportioned the compensation money by his award. [584D]
Boregowda and Anr. v. Subbaramiah and Ors., A.I.R.
(1959)
Mysore, 265, disapproved.
(iii) The award made by the .Collector under s.
~1 is not the
source of the right to compensat10n. An award Is stncUy speakmg
only an offer made by th~ .Government to the person mterested m
the land notified for acqmsit10n; the person mterested IS not bo<:nd
to accept it and the Government can also \V1thdraw the acqu1s1t1on
under s. 48. It is only when possession of the land has been taken by
the Government under s. 16 that the right of the owner of the land
is extinguished. Therefore the appellant's contention that title to
compensation is derived solely from and on the date of the award,
could not be accepted. [584H-585C]
(iv) The liability of the Government under s. 31 to pay compensation to the person entitled thereto under the award does not imply
that only the persons to whom compensation is directed to be paid
under the award mav raise a dispute under s. 30. The scheme of apportionment by the Collector under s. 11 is conclusive only between
th: Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons
interested. Payment of compensation under s. 31 to the persons declared in the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of its
liabilitv to pay compensation leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under s. 30 or by a separate suit. r586B-F]
(v) Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act the title of the appellant
to the land notifiea for acquisition became vested in the State and
therefore the right to compensation for the land ;>Cquired devolved
upon the State. A dispute then arose between the State Government
and the appellant "as to the persons to whom:t compensation was
Pavable. The State had no right to the compensation payable for the
land under a title existing before the date of the award of the Collector and no application could be made bv it as a person interested
within the meaning of s. 18. But a dispute between the appellant and
the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was
clearlv a dispute which could be referred under s. 30 of the Act to
the Court. There is nothing in s. 30 which excludes a reference to the
Court of a dispute raised by a oerson on whom the title of the oi,vner
of the land has s;nce the award, devolved. [584G; 586A. G, HJ
Promotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Addy, 11 Cal. L.J. 420, referred to.
Per Subba Rao, J.-(i) The Land Acquisition Officer cannot make
a reference under s. 30 of the Act in the matter of apportionment of
compensation aft';;'r the award has been made by him apuortioning
the compensation under s. 11 and has been filed under s. 12.
The Land Acquisition Act discloses a well knit scheme in the
matter of making an award. The Land acquisition Officer after issuin~ notice calling for objections decides on the three matters nrescribed in s. 11 i.e. the true area of the land. the .amount of comp€nsation a~d the apportionme~t of the comoensation. Before making the
apportionment he can resort to any of the follo\ving thrPA method~·
(i) to accept an agreed formula:
(ii) to decide for himself; and
5i8
8UI'RF.~tE COl:RT Rl-:PORTS
{.\%\'i\ '3 S.C.R
(iii) to refer to the Court if he thinks that the decision of the
Court is neccssar.v-. But once the a\i.·ard is made, it becomes
final and it can be reopened only in the manner pr.,scribed
i.e. by way of a referrnce und"r s. 18 of the Act.
It is not rorrc·ct to sav that on the above viev.• a person who
.acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos or by devolution of interest w:ll be \\'ithout a rcmrdy. Such a person ma:-· ask for
a reference under s. 18 !fr may apply to be brought on rernnl after
the rc·fcrt=>ncc is madr to the Court. Ile ma~· proceed to thP. Civil Court
to rcrovcr the compensation from thr pc-rsons v.·ho rcceiv~·d it en the
basis of his title. On the other hand th<> contrar: view wiE lead to an
incongruous position. It enables the Lar.d Acquisition Officer to
reopen a final award in thr teeth of the express provisions of s. 12 of
tht' Act. It further enables him to make a reference
without any
period of J;mitation and thus to disturb tl:c rights finally settled by
the award. roBOB-G]
Ov11. APPELLATE Jt:RISDICTION: Ci\il Appeals Nos. 262 to
.l64 of 1964.
Appe3Js from the judgment and decrees dated January 5, and
January 22, 1959. and 24th November 1960 of the Patna
High
Court in appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 401 of 1953. and
297 and 298 of J 954 respectively.
S. R. Ghosa/ and R. C. Prasad. for the appellant lin all the
appeals).
D. P. Singh, R. K. Gar/?. S.C. Agarwa.'a and M.K. Ramam11rthi
for th~ respondent (in all the appeals).
SuuBA RAO J. delivered a dissenting opinion. The Judgment of
S11A11. and BAC'llAWAT JJ. was delivered by SHAH J.
Subba Rao, J. I regret my inability to agree with brother Shah.
J .. on one of the questions raised in the appeals. namely. whether
the Land Acquisition Officer can. after making the award under
s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. hereinafter called the Act,
fixing the compensation for the land acquired and apportioning the
same among the persons interested in the land. refer the question
of apportionment under s. 30 of the Act to the decision of the
Court. Shah. J .. held he could; but. with great respect to him. I
take a different view.
The facts arc fully stated in the judgment of Shah. J.. and they
need not. therefore. be restated here.
The answer to the problem raised falls to be decided on a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 9 of the Act
enjo;ns on the Collector to cause public notice to be givm at convenient places on or near the land to be taken. stating that the
Government intends to take possession of the land. and that claims
to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to
him; under sub-s. (2) thereof such notice shall state the particulars
of the land so needed and shall require persons interested in the
land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time
and place therein mentioned and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
o. n. GRANT v. STATE (S11bba Rao, J.)
579
their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections,
if anv. to. the measurements made under s. 8. Under s. 11, on the
day fixed or on any other day to. which the enquiry has been adjourned. the Collector shall proceed to make an enquiry and shall
make an a\'>ard under his hand of (i) the true area of the land; <ii)
the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the
land; and (iiil the apportionment of the said compensation among
all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of
whom. or of whose claims. he had information, whether or not they
have respectively appeared before him. Under s. 12, "such award
shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter
provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector
and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared
before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land,
and the apportionment of the compensation amtmg the persons interested." The group of sections, viz., ss. 9 to 15, describes the
subject-matter and the nature of the enquiry to be held by the Collector and provides for the making of the final award in respect of
the said subject-matter; ss.18 to 28 provide for reference to Court
and the procedure to be followed therein in respect thereof. Sections
29 and 30 fall under part IV of the Act under the heading "Apportionment of compensation".
As the decision mainly turns upon
these provisions, it will be convenient to read them.in full.
Section 29. Particulars of apportionment to be specifiedWhere there are several persons interested·, if such persons agree in
the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such
persons the awrrd shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness
of the apportionment.
Section 3[' Dispute as to apportionment-When the amount
of compensat;or. 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 persor.s to whom the same or any part thereof is payable,
the Collector mo y refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.
While s. 11 imposes a statutory duty on the Collector to enquire in respect of the three matters mentioned therein, ss. 29 and
30 deal with. the manner of deciding the dispute in respect of one
of the said matters, viz .. apportionment of the compensation fixed;
under s. 29. if the claimants agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the agreed particulars shall be specified in the award
and the said award is final as between them. It is manifest that this
acrreement necessarily refers to the apportionment to be made under
s."' 11 before the award is made, for the section in terms says that
the agreed particulars shall ~e entered in the award. If there is no
such agreement, s. 30 comes rnto play. It also refers to a stage after
the compensation has been settled and before the apportionment
is made and included in the award. If there was no agreed formula,
the Land Acquisition Officer has the discretion, presumably when
580
St:l'HEME COt:HT RF:l'OJtT~
( 196~) 3 ~.C.R.
there is a .complicated question. to refer the dispute in respect of
A
the apportionment to the· Court. But he need not do so if he thinks
fit to decide the dispute for himself.
The Land Acquisition Act d:sclo:.e> a well knit scheme in the
matter of making an award. The bnd Acquisition Officer, after
issuing notice calling for object:om. decides on the three matters
B
prescribed in s. 11, i.e., the true area of the land, the amount of
compensation anJ the appor~ionment of the compensation. Before
making the apportionment of the compensation he can resort to any
of the following three methods: Iii to accept an agreed formula; (iii
to decide for himself; and n:;I to refer to the Court if he thinks that
the decision of the Court is necessarv. But once the award is made,
O
it becomes tin:iJ and it can he reopened only in the manner prescribed. i.e., by way of a reference under s. 18 of the Act. This construction makes for the smooth working of the provisions of the
Act and docs not lead to aDy anomalies. It also does not affect the
right of the aggric,·ed parties to proceed in the manner prescribed
hy the Act for ?Ctting the award vacated or modified. as the case
D
may be. It is said that if this view he accepted, a person who acqu:res a right after the award by transfer inter vivos or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy. I do not sec any difficulty
in that regard. Under s. 18 he m:iv ask for a reference. He may
apply to be brought on record after the reference is made to the
Court. It may also be that he may proceed in a civil Court to reE
cover the compensation from the persons who received it on the
basis of his t;tle. On the other hand. the contrary view will lead to
an incongruous position. It enables the Land Acquisition Officer to
reopen a final aw;ird in the teeth of the express provisions of s. 12
of the A ct. It further enables him to make a reference without any
period of lim'tation and thus to disturb the rights finally settled by
F
the award. I, therefore, hold that the Land Acquisition Officer
cannot make a reference under s. 30 of the Act in the matter of
apportionment of compensation after th~ award has been made by
him apportioning the compensation under s. 11 and has been filed
under s. 12 thereof.
During the course of the arguments it was suggested that as
the interest of Or. Grant devolved on the Government ;t may be
held that the Government was in substance brought on record in
the place of Dr. Grant ;n the reference made under
>. 18 of the
Act to the District Court. But the point was not raised at any stage
G
of the proceedings. Indeed no application was filed in the District
1;
Court for bring;ng the Government on record in the place of Dr.
Grant. In the circumstances I am not justified in permitting the res·
pondent to raise the said point for the first time before this Court.
In the result, I set aside the decision of the High Court and
restore that of the District Court. The appellant will have his costs
throughout.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
G. H. GRANT V. STATE (Shah, J.)
581
Shah, J. Dr. Gregor Hug
Grant~hereinafter called 'Dr.
Grant'-was the proprietor of the Dumka Estate in the District of
Santhal Parganas in the State of Bihar. By a notification under
s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on June 8, 1949
the Government of Bihar notified for acquisition a larger area of
land out of the estate of Dr. Grant for establishing "an agricultural
farm." The Collector made on March 25, 1952 awards setting out
the true area of the land notified for acquisition, compensation
which in his opin'on should be allowed for the land and apportionment of the compensation among all the persons known or believed
to be interested in the land. The awards were filed in the Collector's office on the same day. In respect of Plot No. 142, Rs. 575I14/-
were awarded by the Collector as compensation in equal shares to
Dr. Grant and the members of the village community, who had also
made a claim for compensat;on. In respect of Plot No. 68, the Collector awarded Rs. 294/6/- as compensation. In respect of acquisition of an area admeasuring 88.91 acres consisting of several plots,
the Collector awarded Rs. 1,64,446/5/10 as
compensation and
directed apportionment in the manner set out in the award.
On May 5, 1952 Dr. Grant applied to the Collector under s. 18
of the Land Acquis;tion Act that the three matters be referred for
determination by the Court of the amount of compensation payable to the owners. Similar applications were filed in respect of
Plot Nos. 68 & 142 by the members of the village community. In
consequence of a notification issued under s. 3 of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act 30 of 1950 the Dumka Estate vested on May 22, 1952
in the State of Bihar. In exercise of the power under s. 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Bihar took over possession on August 21, 1952 of the Lands notified for acquisition.
On October 15. 1952 the Government Pleader submitted a petition before the Collector claiming that the compensation money
awarded to Dr. Grant had since the publication of the notification
under the Bihar Land Reforms Act become payable to the State
Government, and the dispute between Dr. Grant and the State
Government regatding the right to payment may be referred to the
Court under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Collector made on November 5, 1952 three references to
the District Court, Santhal Parganas. Two out of those references
were made in exercise of powers under ss. 30 & 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the third under s. 30. The District Judge by his
order dated April 9, 1954 held that the State of Bihar had no interest in the property notified for acquisition when the award was
filed before the Collector under s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act,
and the State could lay no claim to the compensation money awarded. The District Judge upheld the apportiomnent of compensation
between Dr. Grant and the village community and enhanced the
valuation of the land and directed that compensation at the enhanc·
ed rate be awarded.
IS92
8PPJlli:l1E f'OURT R&PORTS
Against the order of the District Judge in the references. three
A
appeals Nos. 401 of 1953, 297 of 1954 and 298 of 1954 were preferred by the State to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The
High Court held that title of the owner to the land acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act could not be extinguished under that Act
till possession was taken under s. 16 of the Act, and that since the
title of Dr. Grant in the land acquired sto<xl statutorily vested in th~
B
State by virtue of the notification issued under the
Bihar Land
Reforms Act, he was not entitled to receive
the
compensation
money. In the view of the High Court, title to the compensation
money had vested in the State Government before possession was
obtained by the State Government under s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that it was open to the Collector. on a dispute ra;sed
0
by the State about the right to receive the compensation money, to
make a reference to the Court under s. 30 of the Act. With certificate granted by the High Court, these three appeals
have been
preferred by Dr. Grant.
Three contentions have been
urged in support of the apD
peals: (!) the Collector had no authority to refer the matter under
s. 30 after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under
s. 11 (2) since title to compensation is derived solely from and on
the date of the award, the notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act did not deprive Dr. Grant of his right to receive compensation, and (3) the State Government was not "a person interestE
ed" within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, and could not
apply for a reference under s. 30.
After a notification is issued under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government may acquire the land notified
in the manner set out in ss. 7 to 16. Section 9 provides for an enF
quiry inio the area of the land, into compensation which is payable
and· apportionment of compensation. The Collector is
by s. 11
authorised to make an award setting out the true area of the land.
the compensation which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the
land and the apportionment of the said compensation among all
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or of
G
whose claims, he has information, whether or not thev have respectively appeared before him. The award when filed in 'the Collector's office becomes final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of
the land and the apportionment of compensation among the perH
sons interested. The land vests absolutely in the Government. free
from all encumbrances when possession is taken by the Collector
under s. 16. Bys. 17 authority is conferred upon the Collector,
when in cases of urgency the appropriate Government so directs,
to take possession of waste or arable land even before making an
award. Section 48 authorises the Government to withdraw from
the acquisition any land ot which possession has not been taken.
A
B
0
D
E
F
G
B
G. H. GRANT V. STATE (Shah, J.)
583
By s. 18 the Collector is en joined to refer to the District Court for
determination, objections as to the measurement of the land, the
amount of compensation. the persons to whom i.t is payable, or
the apportionment thereof among the persons interested. Part IV
deals with apportionment of compensation. If the persons interested agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars
of such apportionment shall be specified in the award (s. 29): if
there be no such agreement, the Collector may, if a dispute arises
as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof
or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, refer such dispute under s. 30 for decision by the Court. Part
V of the Act which contains ss. 31 to 34 deals with payment of
compensation. Under s. 31 the Collector has to tender payment of
the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled
thereto according to the award. By the third proviso to sub-s. (2)
of s. 31, liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any
part of the compensation awarded under the Act, to pay the same
to the person lawfully entitled thereto, is not affected. Sections 32
& 33 deal with investment of money deposited in respect of land
belonging to persons incompetent to alienate the land and in other
cases, but with these we are not concerned. Section 34 obliges the
Collector to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum
if compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land from the time of taking possession until it is so
paid or deposited.
There are two prov;sions ss. 18(1) and 30 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.
By sub-s. (!)of s. 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to
apportionment, or as to 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. Section 30
authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation
is sett!~-<! under s. 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of
the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same
or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the
award which relates to apportionment of compensation, who is
present either personally or through a representative, or on whom
a notice is served under sub-s. (2) of s. 12. must, if he does not
accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time prescribed
under s. 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who hai;
not appeared in the acquisiHon proceeding before the Collector may,
if he is not served with notice of the filing. raise a dispute as to
apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable, and
apply to the Court for a reference under s. 30, for determination of
his right to compensation which may have existed before the award,
or which may have develoved upon him since the award. Whereas
under s. 18 an application made to the Collector must be made within the period prescribed by sub-s.(2) cl. (b), there is no such period
Sl.'l'REME CO\'HT REPORTS
prescribed under s. 30. Again under s. 18 the Collector is bound to
make a reference on a petition tiled by a person interested. ·1 he
Collector is under s. 30 not enjoined to make a rcfcrenc~: he may
relegate the person raising a dispute as to apportionment, or as to
the person to whom compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute
in a suit and pay the compensation .;n the manner declared by his
award.
We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Mysore
High Court in Boregvwda and another v. Sribbaramiah anti (,/hers
l'I that if the Collector has made apportionment of the compensation money b)! his award h;s power to refer a dispute under s. 3\l
cannot be exercised. Clause (iii) of s. 11 enjoins the Collector to
apportion the compensation money among persons known or
believed to be interested in the land: he has no discretion in the
matter. Exercise of the power under s. 30 to refer the dispute relating to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable is,
it is true, discretionary: the Collector may. but is not bound to
exercise that power. It is however not predicated of the exercise of
that power that the Collector has not apportioned the compensation money by his award. We are also unable to agree with the
Mysore High Court that the power urclcr s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be exercised on a motion within the pcri'od prescribed by s. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In our judgment the
p~wcrs exercisable by the Collector under s. 18(1) and under s. 30
arc distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not
overlap.
By virtue of the notification issued under the Bihar Land
Reforms Act the right of Dr. Grant vested in the State of Bihar.
On March 25, 1952 when the Collector made an award under s. 11,
the only .persons interested in the award were. Dr. Grant and the
members of the village community. but the title of Dr. Grant in
the land notified for acquisition stood, by operation of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act, transferred as from May 22, 1952 to the State
of Bihar. A dispute then arose between the State Government and
Dr. Grant "as to the persons vhom" compensation was payable.
The State had no right to the compensation payable for the land
under ~ title existing before the date of the award of the Collector.
and no application for reference could be made by the State. as a
person interested within the meaning of s. 18(1). The title of the
State to receive compensation arose only when in consequence of
the notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. the title
of Dr. Grant to the Estate was divested.
An award by the Collector is strictly speaking an offer made
to the person interested in the land notified for acquisition: the
latter may accept the offer. but is not bound to accent it. He may
ask for a reference to the Court for adjudication of his claim for
adequate compensation. The person interested may even accept
(') A.l.R. 1959 1\!yoo,. 2M.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
G. H. GRANT V. STATE (Shah, J.)
585
A
the compensation under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount
ar,d ask for a reference. It is also open to the Government, even
after the award is made, but before possession is taken, to withdraw
from acquisition of any land in exercise of the powers conferred by
s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is therefore not the award of
the Collector which is the source of the right to compensation: the
B
award quantifies the offer of the appropriate Government, which
1s made because the Government has taken over, or intends to take
the land of the owner under the authority conferred by the Land
Acquisition Act. In Serju Prasad Sahu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others(')
it was observed by this Court in considering the
scheme of the Act that the right of the owner of the land is extinC . guished when Government takes possession of the land after an
award of compensation is made. This is also supported by the scheme
of the Act. Interest is made payable under s. 28 on the additional
amount of compensation awarded by the Court from the date on
which the Collector had taken possession. Similarly under s. 34 interest is made payable on the compensation from the date on which
D
the possession is taken, if the same be not paid or deposited on or
heiore taking possession of the land.
E
F
G
H
The right of the State of Bihar arose on May 22, 1952 when
the title to the land vested in it by virtue of the notification issued
ur, ier the Bihar Land Reforms Act. There is nothing in the Land
Acquisition Act which prohibits the Collector from making a
relerence under s. 30 for determination of the title of the person
who has since the date of the award acquired a right to the compensation. If after a reference is made to the Court, the person interestea dies or his title devolves upon another person, because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture, compulsory winding up
01 other form of statutory transfer, it would be open to the party
upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the
person from whom the title has devolved could have prosecuted. In
Pr.Jmotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Addy(') it was held that a
reference made by the Collector under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition
Act at the instance of a proprietor of land may be prosecuted by
the purchaser of his rights after the award at a revenue auction. If
the right to prosecute a reference by a person on whom the title of
the person interested has devolved be granted, there is no reason
why the right to claim a reference of a dispute about the person
ent;tled to compensation may not be exercised by the person on
wl1om the title has devolved since the date of the award.
The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all disputes
about the quantum of compensation must be decided by resort to
th~ procedure prescribed by the Act; it is also intended that disputes
about the rights of owners to compensation being ancillary to the
principal dispute should be decided by the Court to which power
is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf is not restricted
(') A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1763.
(') 11 Cal. L.J. 420.
St:PREME COURT REPORTS
[1965] 3 •.a...
to cas~ of apportionment, but extend! to adjudication of disputes
as to the persons who are entitled to receive compensation, and
there is nothing in s. 30 which excludes a reference to the Court of
a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of land
has, 'ince the award, devolved.
It was strongly pressed that under s. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to tender payment of compensation
awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto according to the
award and that implied that a right in the amount of compensation
arises to the person to whom compensation is directed to be paid
under the award, and therefore the only persons who can raise a
dispute under s. 30 arc those whose names are set out in the award.
Thi~ contention stands refuted by the plain terms of s. 30. The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the
persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily
concerned with the acquisition of the land. In detennining the
amount of compensation which may be offered, he has. it is true,
to appc.rtion the amount of compensation between the persons
known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of
whose daims, he has information. whether or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector
does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the
amount of compensation: the award is only conclusive between
the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons
interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon
the title to compcnsatio11. that dispute has to be decided either in
a reference under s. 18 or under s. 30 or in a separate suit. Payment
of compensation therefore under s. 31 to the person declared by
the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State of its liability
to pay compensation (subject to any modification by the Court),
!saving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right
in a reference under s. 30 or by a separa ta suit.
The dispute between the State of llihar and Dr. Grant has
been expressly referred by the Collector to the Court for decision.
Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. the title of Dr. Grant to the
land notified for acquisition became vested in the State, and there
fore the right to compensation for the land ftcquired devolved
upon the State. A dispute between Dr. Grant and the State as to
their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a
dispute which could be referred under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition
Act to the Court and was in fact rctcrred to the Court. We are unable to agree with counsel for Dr. Grant that the reference made
by the Collector under s. 30 was incompetent. because the State was
not interested in the compensation money on the date when the
award was made. The right ,,f the State of Bihar has undoubtedly
arisen a<ter the award was made. but once the title which was
origi.,~lly ve,ted in Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred to the
State, it was open to the State to claim a reference, not because the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
(}. Ir. /}RANT V. STATE (Shah, J.)
587
A
State was a person interested in the compensation money before the
date. of the award, but because of the right which has arisen since
the award was made.
We therefore dismiss the appeals with costs. There will be one
hearing fee.
ORDER
B
Following the judgment ef the majority, the appeals are dismissed with costs. There will be one hearing fee.