High Court quashes Collector's reference lacking jurisdiction over Land Acquisition Act compensation dispute

The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as it can interfere if an administrative body acts without jurisdiction. The court quashed the Collector's reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, stating it lacked jurisdiction as there was no actual dispute over compensation apportionment. The petitioner was deemed entitled to receive the compensation awarded, as the Government's doubts did not constitute a valid dispute. The court allowed the petition, quashed the reference, and directed the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Validity of the reference made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to receive the compensation awarded.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition:
The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition. The court held that if an administrative or quasi-judicial body acts without jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere in its certiorari jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court decisions in State of M.P. v. D.K. Jadav AIR 1968 SC 1186 and Raza Textile v. I.T. Officer AIR 1973 SC 1362, emphasizing that the High Court can re-examine jurisdictional facts. The court also referenced Sudhangshu Kumar v. L.A. Officer AIR 1961 Pat 150, where it was held that the existence of a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation is a question of jurisdictional fact. The court concluded that the objection to its jurisdiction was untenable.

2. Validity of the reference made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The petitioner contended that the reference under Section 30 was misconceived and without jurisdiction. The court noted that Section 30 presupposes disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation or the persons to whom it is payable. The court found that there was no such dispute in this case. The Collector's reference was based on the Government's doubt about the petitioner's eligibility to receive the compensation, which does not constitute a dispute under Section 30. The court emphasized that a "dispute" means a quarrel between two or more rival parties laying claim over the compensation money. The court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make the reference and quashed it.

3. Entitlement of the petitioner to receive the compensation awarded:
The court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the compensation. The Government initially assumed the land was Government khas land but later accepted the S.D.O.'s report stating that the land belonged to the petitioner's village. The Government initiated acquisition proceedings and the Collector awarded compensation to the petitioner. The Government did not raise any objections during the acquisition proceedings. The court held that the mere doubt about the petitioner's eligibility did not constitute a dispute under Section 30. The court also noted that the Government's claim that the land was Government khas land or that the petitioner had only possessory rights was not raised before the Collector. The court concluded that the respondents were bound to pay the compensation to the petitioner in terms of the award.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, the reference made by the Collector was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The court left the parties to bear their own costs.

---