DR. G. B. GRANT versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 30-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 Re-
form-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 res-
pect 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 Collec-
tor 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 appor-
tioned the amount of compensation under s. II; (2) since title to com-
pensation 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 apportion-
ment 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 dis-
pute 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. [583E-
584A] 
~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 com-
pensation 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 compen-
sation 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 aw

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.