SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.versusCENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.

                                                                  603


                            SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.                        A
                                     v.
                   CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.

                               MARCH 11 , 1986

                  [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.]              B



~            Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

             Land Acquisition Act., 1894 -. Sections 11, 18, 25 and
    50(2).
                                                                        c
          Award of Collector under s.11 - Whether Government,
    Company or local authority can seek a reference under s. 18,
    except on grounds of fraud, corruption or collusion - Whether
    petition under Article 226 filed by Government or anyone
    claiming through it, challenging the Collector's order
    declining to make reference under s.18 maintainable.                D


          Pursuant to the awards made under s. 11 of the Land
    Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Collector determining the
    compensation proposed to be paid to appellants for the
    acquisition of their lands, the appellants sought reference
    under s.18 for enhancement of compensation.                         E

         The Central Ware-hoiising Corporation, at whose instance
   the land was acquired, also felt aggrieved by the amount of
r· compensation determined by the Collector and sought a
   reference to the Civil. Court under s .18 for reducing the
   amount. The Collector rejected this request on the ground that       F
   such a reference was barred by the proviso to s.50(2) of the
   Act.

          In the writ petition under Article 226, the Corporation
    challenged the awards. The High Court set aside the awards and
    itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate.               G •

             Allowing the appeals of the land-owners to this Court,

          HELD : 1. The High Court was wrong in entertaining the
    writ petitions challenging awards made by the Collector under
                                                                        H
     604                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1986] 1 s.c.R.

A
     the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and claiming that the lllOOunt
     awarded was excessive. (609 F]
                                                                       ---
           2. The scheme of the Act is that, apart from fraud,
     corruption or collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by
     the Collector under s.11 may not be questioned in any
B    proceeding either by the Government or by the Company or
     Local Authority at whose instance the acquisition is made.
     Section 50(2) and s. 25 lead to that inevitable cqnclusion.
     What may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not
     be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the
     High Court under Article 226. Article 226 is not meant to
c    avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the
     provisions of the statute. (607 E-<;]

           3. When S. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local
     authority at whose instance acquisit!on is made from demanding
     a reference under s .18 notwithstanding that such company or
D    local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the        ' '
     Collector, and when s.25 expressly prohibits the Court from
     reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the
     reference under s.18, it is clearly not permissible for the
     company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the
     High Court under Article 226 to challenge the amount to
E    compensation awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced.
     [ 607 G-H; 608 A]

             4, The Collector, in making an award, acts as an agent
     . of the Government, and the legal character of the award made i
       by the Collector is that of a tender or of fer by him on behalf
F
       of the Government and, therefore, the Government or anyone who
       could but claim through the Government cannot question the,
       award apart from fraud, corruption or collusion. 608 C-E)

           l!.zra v. Seci:etaey of State for India, (32 Indian Appelas
     93 " I.L.R. 32, Calcutta 605); Barish Ciandra v. Deputy Laud
     Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 S,C,R. 676; ~ Basnidd1n
G.
     v. State of Mabarashtra, (1979) 2 S.C.R. 265 at 274; llnnicipal ._
     C'A>rporation of the City of ~al:Jrad v. Owndnlal Sbaaaldas
     Patel &OJ:s,, [1971] 2 SCC 821 relied upon.

           Abdul Karia Allarkha v. State of Rajasthan, A.l.R, 1982
     SC 61; TOllll blproveent Trust, Gwalior v. Sahajirao., A.I.R.
H
     1978 MP 218 distinguished.
           S. KUMAR v. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. ]     605


___,,         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     Civil Appeal Nos. 928-        A
        930 of 1986.

              From the Judgment and Order dated 17th January, 1983 of
        the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 397, 540
        and 566 of ,1980.
                                                                             B
           L.N. Sinha, T.U. Mehta, B.R.L. Iyengar and P.P.          Juneja
. _.,for the Appellants.

              K.C. Mittal, M.C. Bhandari, Miss Asha Rani Jain and Tara
        Chand Sharma for the Respondents.

              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     c

            alillNAPPA REDDY, J. These appeals by special leave of
     this Court raise the same question and may, therefore, be
     disposed of by a co11DDOn judgment. For the purpose of
, ~ constructing godowns for the Central Warehousing Corporation
    and at the instance of the Corporation, the Collector, Khandwa           D
    District published a notification under section 4 of the Land
    Acquisition Act proposing to acquire certain land belonging to
     the appellants. The declaration under section 6 was duly made
     and possession of the land was also taken from the appellants.
    The Collector made Awards under sec. 11 of the Land Acquisi-
     tion Act in January and February, 1980 determining the                  E
    compensation proposed to be paid to the appellants. The
    appellants sought references under s. 18 of the Land Acquisi-
     tion Act for enhancement of compensation and we are told that
   )the references are awaiting adjudication by the Civil Court.
    The Central Warehousing Corporation was also aggrieved by the
    amount of coq>ensation determined by the Collector and sought            F
    a reference to the Civil Court under s. 18 of the Land Acqui-
    sition Act for reducing the amount. The Collector rejected the
    request for making a reference on the ground that such a
     reference as was sought by the Central Warehousing Corporation
     was barred by the proviso to s. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition
   _};,ct. Thereupon the Corporation filed writ petitions under Art.         G
    1l26 of    the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
     challenging the awards. The High Court set aside the awards
    and itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate. The

                                                                             H
    606                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [19861 l s.c.R.
A
    erstwhile owners of the land have filed appeals after obtain-~
    ing special leave from this Court under Art. 136 of the
    Constitution.

          The principal submission of the learned counsel for the
    appellants was that the High Court was wholly in error in
B   entertaining writ petitions to challenge Awards made by the
    Collector under the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that
    the amount awarded was excessive and that too not at the~
    instance of the Government but at the instance of the'
    Corporation at whose request the acquisition was made. The
    learned counsel argued that the Award of the Collector
c   constituted, in law, an offer by ,the Government to pay a
    certain price for the land proposed to be acquired. It was
    open to the person entitled to accept the' determination by the
    Collector and receive the compensation or to object to the
    amount determined by the Collector and seek a reference to the
    Civil Court for proper determination of the compensation. The
D   Award by the Collector being in the nature of an offer by theY
    Coll~ctor, there would be no question of the Collector or the
    Government on whose behalf the acquisition was made
    challenging the award in any proceeding by way of reference to
    the Civil Court or otherwise. What the Government and the
    Collector were not entitled to do, obviously, the person at
E   whose instance the acquisition was made would also not be
    entitled to do. We have no doubt about the correctness of the
    submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

          Section 4 of the Land Acquisitlon Act enables the
    Government, whenever land is needed for any public purpose o~
F   for a colll'any to publish a notification to that effect in the
    official Gazette. After hearing objections, or straightaway,
    where such hearing is dispensed with on account of urgency,
    the Government is required by sec. 6 of the Act to make a
    declaration that any particular land is needed for a public
    purpose or for a company. Thereafter the Collector is required
G   to invite claims to compensation for all interests in such
    land. The Collector is then required by sec.11 of the Act to
    enquire into the objections and the claims and determine anct-
    apportion the compensation by making an award. A proviso added
    by way of an amendment in 1984 stipulates that no award shall
    be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the
H   Government or of the officer authorised by the Government in
           S. KUMAR v. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING [CHINNAPPA RED~, J.]      607

                                                                           A
  ._,,that behalf. Section 18 enables any person interested who has
     not accepted the award to require the Collector to refer the
      matter for the determination of the court, 'whether his
;    objection be to the measurement of the land, the all>)unt of the
      compensation, the persons to whom it. is payable, or the
     apportionment of the compensation among the persons                   B
      interested.' Here we nust refer to s. 50(2). of the Act and the
     proviso thereto which are as follows :-
   ~,



                    "Section 50(2). In any proceeding held before a
                   .Collector or Court in such cases the local
                    authority or Company concerned may appear and
                    adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the     c
                    amount of compensation.

                   Provided that no such local authority or Company
                   shall be entitled to demand a reference under
                   section 18."
                                                                           D
        Section 25 further prescribes that the all>)unt of compensation
        awarded by the court shall not be less than the all>)unt awarded
        by the Collector under s.11. Section 54 provides for an appeal
        to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the
        award, of the Court but it does not prescribe who may appeal
        to the High Court.                                                 E
          In our view there cannot be any possible doubt that the.
    scheme of the Act is that, apart from fraud, corruption or
    ~allusion, the all>)unt of compensation awarded by the Collector
    under s. 11 of the Act may not be questioned in any proceeding
    either by the Government or by the Company or Local authority          F
    at whose instance the acquisition is made. Section 50(2) and
    s. 25 lead to that inevitable conclusion. Surely what may not
    be done under the provisions of the Act may not be permitted
    to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court
    under Art. 226. Art. 226 is not meant to avoi~ or circumvent
    the processes of the law and the provisions of the statute.            G
    ¥11en s. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local authority at
    whose instance the acquisition is made from demanding a
    reference under s. 18 of the Act, notwithstanding that such
    Company or Local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence
    be!fore the Collector, and when s. 2_5 expressly prohibits the
    court from reducing the all>)unt of compensation while dealing         H
     608                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [19B6J l s.c.R.


A    with the reference under s, 18, it is clearly not permissible'f--
     for the company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction
     of the High Court under Art. 226 to challenge the amount of
     compensation awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced.

          Long ago, it was held in Ezra v. Secretary of State for
     India, 32 Indian Appeals 93 = I.L.R. 32, Calcutta 605 and it
Ii   has never been doubted since, 'that the 'Award' in which the
     enquiry by the Collector results is merely a decision (binding'"
     only on the Collector) as to what sum shall be tendered to the
     owners of the lands' and that, 'if a judicial ascertainment of
     value is desired by the owner, he can obtain it by requiring
     the matter to be ref erred by the Collector to the Court, ' As
'C   pointed out by tl}is Court in Harieh Chandra v. Deputy Land
     Acquisition Officer, [1962] l S,C.R. 676, the observations of
     the Privy Council in Ezra's case indicat" that the Collector,
     i.n making an award, acts as an agent of the Government and
     that the legal character of the award made by the Collector is
     that of a tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government'' ,
o    (See also Moballlllad Basnwldin v. State of Maharashtra>. [ 1979]
     2 S.C.R, 265 at 274. If the Collector making an award was in
     law making an offer on behalf of the Government, it is diffi-
     cult to appreciate how the Government or anyone who could but
     claim through the Government would be entitled to question the
     award, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion.
E
          The learned counsei for the respondents invited our
     attention to Abdul Karla Allarkha v. State of llajastban,
     A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 61 to urge that "a reference may be had no~
     only at the instance of a person interested, who has not
     accepted the award or the amount thereof, but also at the
 F   instance of the authority acquiring the land, that is, on
     whose behalf or the company for which the acquisition is being
     made." The decision in this case turned on the express provi-
     sions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, sec. 18(1) of
     which expressly enabled 'the State Government department on
     whose behalf or the company for which acquisition iS being
 G   made or any person interested who has not accepted the awart
     to make a written application to the Collector requiring that
     the matter be ref erred by the Collector for the determination
     of the Court. This case is, therefore, of no assistance what-
     soever to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respon-
     dents also drew our attention to Town llllprovement Trust,
 H
      S. KUMAR v. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J,]       609
                                                                         A
 -4'Gwalior v. Sahajirao, A.I.R. 1978 M.P. 218. The decision in
    the case t1.1rned upon an interpretation of the expression
    'person interested' defined in sec.3(b) of the Land Acquisi-
    tion Act. In the first place, we are not satisfied that the
    definition is capable of the wide interpretation given by the
                                                                         B
    learned judges and in the second place, the question does not
    really turn en the meaning of the expression 'person interes-
    ted', but turns on the scheme of the Act and the scope of
' ~,sections 25 and 50(2) of the Act.

             On the other hand, the decision of this court in the
     Municlpal Corporation of the City of Abemdabad v. Chandnlal
      Sbamaldas Patel & Ors., [1971] 3 s.c.c. 821 appears to run
                                                                         c
      along the same lines as that indicated by us. In that case
      certain lands belonging to the first respondent were notified
      for acquisition by the Government of Bombay "for school and
      neighbourhood work". The first respondent challenged the noti-
   ' fication for acquisition by filing a writ petition in the High
                                                                         D
,, · Court of Gujarat which was allowed. The Municipal Corporation
      of Ahmedabad preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court, A
      preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability
      of the appeal by the Municipal Corporation and .the objection
      was sought to be met on the plea that the acquisition was for
      the use of the Municipal Corporation. The. court upheld the
                                                                         E
      preliminary objection observing, "The property, it is true,
      was notified for acquisition by the State Government for the
      use of the Municipal Corporation after it was acquired by the
      Government, but that, in our judgment, did not confer any
     tl.nterest in the Municipal Corporation so as to enable it to
      file an appeal against the order of the High Court allowing
                                                                         F
      the petition". We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the
     IHigh Court was wrong in entertaining jol!'it petitions challeng-
      ing awards made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition
      Act and claiming that the a100unt awarded was excessive. The
      appeals are allowed with costs and the writ petitions filed in
      the High Court are dismissed.
                                                                         G



   1A.P.J.                                          Appeals allowed.