http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: DR. G.H. GRANT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1965

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  237            1965 SCR  (3) 576  CITATOR INFO :  R          1968 SC 366  (13)  R          1980 SC 775  (11)

ACT: Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894 ss.  11,  18,  30--Bihar  Land Reforms Act, 1950, s. 3--Award fixing compensation for  land acquired--Land    Reform--Acquired    land    vesting     in State--State    whether   entitled  to  compensation   under award--Reference  under  s.  30 to  decide  claim  of  State whether competent.

HEADNOTE: The appellant owned certain lands in the State of Bihar   in respect  of which proceedings under the   Land   Acquisition Act were started. Under s. 11 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 village 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. references 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 was made to the Collector to make a reference to the Court under s. 30 of the Act claiming  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 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 the  appellant of  his  right to receive compensation; and  (3)  the  State Government  was not ’a person interested within the  meaning

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

of  the  Land  Acquisition Act, and could not  apply  for  a reference. under s. 30. HELD:  Per  Shah  and  Bachawat,  JJ.--(i)  There  are   two provisions  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  the 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  award,  or which  may  have devolved upon him since the  award.  For  a reference under s. 30 no period of limitation is prescribed. [583E-584A]             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.  11  is not  the  source of the right to compensation. An  award  is strictly  speaking only an offer made by the  Government  to the person interested in the land notified for  acquisition; the  person  interested is not bound to accept  it  and  the Government can also withdraw the acquisition 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 t.hat only the persons to whom  compensation is directed to. be paid under the award may raise a  dispute under  s. 30. The scheme of apportionment by  the  Collector under  s. 11 is conclusive only between the‘  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  liability  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. [586B-F]     (v)  Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act the title  of  the appellant to the land notified for acquisition became vested in  the. State and therefore the right to  compensation  for the  land acquired devolved upon the. State. A dispute  then arose between the State Government and the appellant "as  to the  persons to  whom" compensation was payable.  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 by 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 clearly 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Court  of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title  of the owner of the land has since the award, devolved.  [584G; 586A, G, H]     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 after the award  has  been made  by him apportioning 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  issuing notice calling for objections decides on  the three matters prescribed in s. 11 i.e. the true area of  the land,  the amount of compensation and the  apportionment  of the  compensation.  Before making the apportionment  he  can resort to any of the following three methods. (i)  to  accept’  an  agreed formula;  (ii)  to  decide  for himself; and 578   (iii)  to  refer  to  the Court if  he.  thinks  that  the decision  of the Court is necessary. But once the  award  is made,  it becomes final and it can be reopened only  in  the manner prescribed i.e. by way of a reference under s. 18  of the Act. It  is not correct to say that on the  above view a   person who acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy.  Such a  person may ask for a reference under s. 18. He may  apply to be brought on record after the reference is made to  the. Court.  He  may proceed to the Civil Court  to  recover  the compensation  from the persons who received it on the  basis of his title. On the other hand the contrary view will  lead to   an   incongruous  position.  It  enables    the    Land Acquisition  Officer to reopen a final award in the teeth of the  express  provisions  of s. 12 of the  Act.  It  further enables  him  to  make a reference  without  any  period  of limitation and thus to disturb the rights finally settled by the award. [580B-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 262  to 264 of 1964.     Appeals  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 1954 respectively. S.R.  Ghosal and R.C. Prasad, for the appellant (in all  the appeals). D.P.  Singh,  R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwala and  M.K.  Ramamurthi for the respondent (in all the appeals). SUBBA  RAO. J. delivered a dissenting opinion. The  Judgment of SHAH, and BACHAWAT 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

   The facts are 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 enjoins on the Collector to cause public notice to  be given 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          579 their  claims to compensation for such interests, and  their objections,  if  any, 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 award 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 (iii)  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  among 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 specified-Where  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 award  shall  be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.     Section 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.     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 agreement necessarily refers to the apportionment to be made under  s.  11 before the award is made, for the  section  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

terms says that the agreed particulars shall be entered’  in the  award. If there is no such agreement, s. 30 comes  into 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 there  is  a complicated question, to refer the  dispute  in respect  of 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 discloses a well knit scheme in the matter of making an award. The Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing notice calling for objections, decides on  the three  matters prescribed in s. 11, i.e., the true  area  of the  land, the amount of compensation and the  apportionment of the compensation. Before making the apportionment of  the compensation  he  can resort to any of the  following  three methods: (i) to accept an agreed formula; (ii) to decide for himself;  and (iii) to refer to the Court if he thinks  that the  decision of the Court is necessary. But once the  award is made, it becomes final and it can be 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 does  not  lead  to  any anomalies.  It  also  does  not  affect  the  right  of  the aggrieved parties to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act for getting the award vacated or modified’, as the  case may  be. It is said that if this view be accepted, a  person who acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy. I  do not  see any difficulty in that regard. Under s. 18  he  may 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  recover  the compensation from the persons who received’ it on the  basis of his title. On the other hand, the contrary view will lead to an incongruous position. It enables the Land  Acquisition Officer to reopen a final award in the teeth of the  express provisions  of s. 12 of the Act. It further enables  him  to make  a reference without any period of limitation and  thus to  disturb  the  rights finally settled by  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 the 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 Dr. Grant devolved on the Government  it may be held that the Government was in substance brought  on record in the place of Dr. Grant in the reference made under s.  18 of the Act to the District Court. But the  point  was not  raised  at  any stage of  the  proceedings.  Indeed  no application was filed in the District Court for bringing the Government  on  record  in the place of Dr.  Grant.  In  the circumstances   I  am  not  justified’  in  permitting   the respondent 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. 581     Shah,  J.  Dr.  Gregor  Hug  Grant   hereinafter  called ’Dr.  Grant’--was the proprietor of the Dumka Estate in  the District  of  Santhai Parganas in the State of Bihar.  By  a notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

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 opinion 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. 575/14/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  compensation.  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 Acquisition 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  regarding  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, Santhai 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 apportionment of  compensation between Dr. Grant and the village community and enhanced the valuation of the land and directed that compensation at  the enhanced rate be awarded. 582     Against   the  order  of  the  District  Judge  in   the references, three appeals Nos. 401 of 1953, 2c)7 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 stood statutorily vested  in the  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

the  Collector, on a dispute raised 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 appeals:  (1)  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  interested" 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 enquiry into 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 whose claims, he has  information,  whether or not they 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  persons interested.  The  land vests absolutely in  the  Government, free  from all encumbrances when possession is taken by  the Collector under s. 16. By s. 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  of which possession has not been taken. 583 By s. 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer to the  District Court for determination, objections as to the measurement of the  land,  the amount of compensation, the persons to  whom it  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

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 provisions 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. (1) 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 settled 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  has not  appeared  in  the  acquisition 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 584 prescribed  under s. 30. Again under s. 18 the Collector  is bound  to make a reference on a petition filed by  a  person interested.  The  Collector is under s. 30 not  enjoined  to make  a  reference:  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 in the manner  declared.  by  his award. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Mysore High  Court  in  Boregowda and another  v.  Subbaramiah  and others     that  if  the Collector has made  apportionment  of  the compensation money by his award his power to refer a dispute under  s.  30  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 under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be  exercised on a motion within the period prescribed by s. 18(2) of  the Land Acquisition Act. In our judgment the powers exercisable by the Collector under s. 18(1) and under s. 30 are 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

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 whom" compensation was payable. 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 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 accept it. He may ask for a reference to the  Court for adjudication of his claim for adequate compensation. The person interested may even accept (1)A.I.R. 1959 Mysore  265. 585 the compensation under protest as to the sufficiency of  the amount  and  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   award   quantifies  the  offer  of   the   appropriate Government,  which is 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(1)   it was observed by this Court in considering the scheme of  the Act that the right of the owner of the land is  extinguished 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 the possession is taken, if  the  same be not paid or deposited on or  before  taking possession of the land.     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 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.  There is  nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which prohibits  the Collector   from   making  a  reference  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 interested  dies or his title devolves upon another  person, because of inheritance, succession, insolvency,  forfeiture, compulsory winding up  or 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  Promotha Nath  Mitra  v.  Rakhal  Das Addy(2)  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

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 entitled  to compensation may not be exercised by the person on whom  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 the 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 (1)A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1763. (2) 11 Cal.  L.J. 420. 586 to  cases of apportionment, but extends 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, since  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  are  those whose names are set out in  the  award.  This 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  determining  the  amount  of compensation  which may be offered, he has, it is  true,  to apportion  the amount of compensation between  the   persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom,  or of  whose  claims, 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 compensation, 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), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under s. 30 or by a separate suit.     The  dispute between the State of Bihar 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 acquired 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 referred 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

compensation money on the  date when the award was made. The right of the State of Bihar has undoubtedly arisen after the award  was  made, but once the  title which  was  originally vested  in  Dr. Grant stood statutorily transferred  to  the State,  it was open to the State to claim a  reference,  not because the 587 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     Following the judgment of the majority, the appeals  are dismissed with costs. There will be one hearing fee. 588