SUNDER LAL versus PARAMSUKBDAS

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 25-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUNDER LAL 
v. 
PARAMSUKBDAS 
August 25, 1967 
[J. c. SHAH, s. M. SIIW AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 3(b), 20 and 21-Peraon 
interested in compensation but not land-If entitled to bi; made 
party to a reference to Civil Court. 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 115-Revirional Juris-
diction-Scope of. 
The land of the appellant was acquired under the Land Acquisi-
tion Act, 1894 and the compensation was apportioned between the 
appellant and his lessee. The appellant claimed that he was enti\!ed 
to the whole of the compensation ·while his lessee claimed a larger 
share. At their instance, references were made to the Civil Court 
under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, before the references 
were made, the respondent, who was a decree holder against the 
lessee, attached the lessee's share of the compensation amount in 
execution of his decree. Subsequently the respondent withdrew the 
lessee's share of the compensation amount in execution of his 
decree. The appellant and his lessee, filed a compromise petition 
before the Civil Judge and the respondent also applied to be 
impleaded as party to the References. The ·Civil Judge dismissed 
the respondent's apolications. The respondent· thereupon. filed revi-
sion petitions in the High Court. The Hitzh Court, held: (1) that 
the respondent was a person interested in the compensation within 
the meaning of s. 3 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act and was there-
fore entitled to claim that he should be allowed to join as a· Darty; 
and (ii) that the revision petitions were competent. In appeal. this 
Court, 
Held: (i) The resnondent was a 'person interested' within s. 3(b) 
of the Act, because. he was claiming an interest in the compensa-
tion. He was also interested in the objections which were pending 
before the Court in the references made to it and was a person 
whose interest would be affected by the objections. within s. 21 of 
the Act. Accordingly, he was entitled to be made a party. [36'1H; 
371C-D] 
The definition of 'person interested' in s. 3 (b) is an inclusive 
definition and in order to fall within it it is not neressary that a 
person should claim an interest in the acquired land. It is sufficient 
if he claims an interest in the compensation to be awarded. 
A 
nerson claiminir an1 interest in the compensation would be 11 perst1n 
interested in the objections to be determined under s. 20 of the 
A 
B 
0 
D 
• 
I' 
Act, if the objection is to the amount of compensation or the appor-
tionment of compensation, ar.d if his claim is likely to be affected 
G 
bv the decision on the objection. Under s. 21 the interests of a person 
who is not affected by the objection are not to be considered; but if 
he is affected. there is no restriction on the grounds which can be 
raised by him to· protect his interest. Therefore, a person claimlnl! 
an intere•t in thP. comoensation is entitled. to be heard under ss. 20 
and 21. The sections do not prescribe that his claim to an Interest 
in compensation should be as 'compensation'. A person who has 
no interest in land ran never claim compensation qua compeasa-
(B 
tion, for what he claims is an interest in the compensation, to be 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
8UNDERLAL V. PA.IWISUIO!DAS (Sikri, J.) 
363 
awarded. That is not to say that a person claiming an interest in 
the compensation may not claim that the compensation awarded for 
the acquired land is low, if it affects his interests. [367G-H; 3680-H] 
Grant v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1966 ~.C. 237, followed. 
Golap Khan v. Bholanath Marick, 12, Cal. L.J. 545, Siva Prasad 
Bhattadu v. A.E.L. Mission, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 307 approved. 
Man;oor Ahmed v. Ra.jla.1:1ni Dasi, A.LR. 1956 Cal. 263 Abu Bakar 
v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee, IL.R. 34, Cal. 451, Gobinda Kumar Roy v. 
Debendra Kumar Roy 12 C.W.N. 98. Mahammad Safi. v. Haran 
Chandra 12 C.W.Nl 985 and Kamna Sindhu Dhar v. Panna Lal Para-
rnanik 65 C.W .N. 802, distinguished. 
(ii) The High Court was right in holding that the orders of the 
Civil Judge were not awards within the meaning of s. 54 of the Land 
Acquisition Act; and as they were not awards and no appeals lay, 
the revisions were competent and the High Court was justified in 
interfering as the CiVil Judge refused to exercise a jurisdiction 
vested in him. [371F] 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1003 
and 1004 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 7, 1963 of the Bombay Hi

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