LexRAMESH CHAND AND ORS. versus M/S. TANMAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 3 S.C.R. 282 RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5598 of2017) APRIL26, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.1 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 30 - Reference under - For refund of the earnest money by respondent no. 1 - Adjudication of. C when several civil suits with respect to refimd of earnest money and for specific pe1formance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent no.1 earlier in point of time - Held: Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions uls. 30 with regard to D apportionment of the compensation by directing refund of earnest money - It is not mandatory to make reference to the civil court u/s. 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit - Civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such Reference court rightly rejected the reference made uls. 30 and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the E regular civil suits - Order passed by the High Court for refund of the earnest money set aside . F . Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Several civil suits with respect to refund of the earnest money and for specific performance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent No.1 before reference was sought under Seetion 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions under Section 30 of the Act with regard to apportionment of the compensation G by directing refund of earnest money. It is not mandatory to make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit. In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent No.I. It was not appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30 of the Act. [Para 81 [287-E-Gl .H 282 RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 283 PVT. LTD. & ORS. 1.2 In the instant case, there were serious disputed A questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners due to the failure of the respondent No. 1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance 8 consideration for payment to land owner. Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by them. The civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such reference court had rightly rejected the reference made under Section 30 of the Act and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the regular civil suits. The High Court in the impugned ·c judgment did not decide said objections raised by the appellants/ land owners without examining facts and circumstances of the case and due to pendency of civil suits, it was not open to the High Court to order refund of the earnest money. [Paras 9, 10)(287-H; 288-A-C] 1.3 A perusal of Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that reference can be sought to a civil court with respect the measurement of the land, adequacy and quantum of compellsation, persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. The application under Section 18 is required to be filed within stipulated time whereas no limitation is prescribed under Section 30. It is discretionary upon the court to refer a dispute under Section 30 of the Act. The same is confined to the apportionment of the compensation or as to a person to whom the same is payable. The scope of Section 30 of the Act is narrow as compared to Section 18 of the Act. [Para 11](288-D-EJ 1.4 Even if it is held that respondent No.1 was the "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act its case ·D E F is not advanced so as to seek adjudication of the questions in the facts of the instant case in the reference under Section 30 of the G Act which remedy was discretionary. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The land owners are entitled for disbursement of the compensation. It would be subject to the outcome of the civil suits in which refund of the earnest money along with interest had been sought by the respondent No.1. In H . 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.