1. By this judgment I shall dispose of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 508 and 517 of 1973 which are directed against an order dated the 21st of March, 1973 of Shri R. L. Garg, Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing two applications filed by Nawab Khan, the petitioner before me.
2. The facts giving rise to the two petitions are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. On the 26th of November, 1962, Nawab Khan petitioner executed an agreement for the sale of 193 Kanals odd of land to Bharat Bhushan respondent No. 1 for Rs. 3,80,000/- part of the price was received by the petitioner as earnest money and the balance was agreed to be paid by respondent No. 1 within a period of about one year. Possession of the land was transferred to respondent No. 1. The agreement provided that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to divide the land into plots and to sell them to third parties in whose favour the petitioner bound himself to execute sale-deeds. Another stipulation inserted in the agreement was that if the land was acquired by Government, the petitioner would be entitled to no more than Rs. 3,80,000/- (including the earnest money) out of the compensation awarded while the excess, if any, would go to respondent No. 1. The agreement was renewed on the 13th of December, 1965, and therein also the stipulation above mentioned was inserted. Thereafter the State of Haryana acquired the land and the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 5,37, 631.90 as compensation therefor. The petitioner received payment from the Collector of an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- minus the earnest money under protest while the balance of the compensation was received by respondent No. 1, also under protest.
Respondent No.1 made to the Collector an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) objecting to the amount of compensation and requiring that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court. The Collector accepted the application in which the petitioner figured as a respondent. before the Court, the When the case came up petitioner filed a written statement admitting the allegations made by respondent No. 1 and conceding that he (the petitioner) was not entitled to anything more than Rs. 3,80,000/- in all and that the balance of the compensation was receivable by respondent No. 1.
On the 4th of March, 1972, the petitioner made an application to the Court seeking an amendment of the written statement so as to plead that he was entitled to the entire compensation, being the owner of the acquired land, that he did not know English (the language in which the written statement was drafted) and that the written statement, as originally filed, had not been read to him by his counsel and contained wrong admissions by which the petitioner was not bound.
On the 23rd of October, 1972, the petitioner filed another application before the Court under Section 151 and Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that he was as much interested in having the compensation enhanced as respondent No. 1 and that he (the petitioner) should be transposed in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act as a co-claimant with respondent No. 1.
The learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the applications through the impugned order holding that they were dishonestly made and that by reason of the two agreements above mentioned as well as his subsequent conduct, the petitioner had ceased to be a person 'who is aggrieved within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.'
3. Civil Revision Application No. 508 of 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the prayer for amendment of the written statement while Civil Revision Application No. 517 of 1973 is directed against the refusal of the learned Additional District Judge to transpose the petitioner as a co-claimant with respondent No. 1.
4. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that Section 18 of the Act does not talk of an 'aggrieved person' and that the impugned order is vitiated on that ground alone. Section 18, as amended for the State of Haryana, may be reproduced here with advantage:
'18. (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, or the amount of costs allowed.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made:--
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.'
This section no doubt makes no reference to a 'person aggrieved' and gives the right to make an application objecting to the amount of compensation, etc., to 'any person interested' but the fact does not alter the situation in so far as the petitioner is concerned for the sole reason that the petitioner made no application at all under the section. The jurisdiction conferred on the Court under the provisions of the Act is of an exclusive character and the only remedy which a person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can have is by way of an application under Section 18 praying for a reference of the matter in dispute to the Court. In other words, a person who has not filed an application of that type is not entitled to any remedy under the Act unless of course his case is covered by Section 30 thereof. Not having chosen to claim through an application under Section 18 anything more than what the Collector awarded him, the petitioner dis-entitled himself to relief from the Court, even if he could be described as a 'person interested' within the meaning of that expression as used in the section. As it is, he cannot be called a 'person interested' either. In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which runs thus:
'25. (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason to be allowed by the Judge to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason to be allowed by the Judge to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.'
This section prohibits the Court from enhancing the compensation over and above any amount claimed by a person before the Collector pursuant to the notice received by him under Section 9. As already stated, the claim of the petitioner before the Collector was limited to an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- (including the earnest money) and that amount he was not only awarded but actually received. He was, therefore, not a 'person interested' in objecting to the award of the Collector on any count.
5. The reason above set out also constitutes sufficient justification for the rejection of the application made by the petitioner to the Court on the 23rd of October, 1972, praying for transposition of his name from the list of respondents to the application and for being made a co-claimant with respondent No. 1. An acceptance of his application would run counter to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act inasmuch as it would allow a person who has not chosen to make an application to the Collector under that section to become a claimant before the Court without recourse to the Collector and also to contravene the rule laid down in the proviso to sub-section (2) of the section in regard to the point of time within which an application under the section could be made. It is to be noted that although transposition of parties is permissible under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Code are made applicable to proceedings under Section 18 of the Act by virtue of Section 53 thereof, the section last mentioned expressly states that the provisions of the Code shall not apply if they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. In my opinion, the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are inconsistent with those of Section 18 of the Act in so far as the transposition of a non-claimant to the list of claimants before the Court is concerned, when such non-claimants have not filed an application under Section 18 to the Collector within the period of time allowed by the proviso to sub-section (2) of the section. The application made by the petitioner on the 23rd of October, 1972, therefore, had no merit and was rightly rejected by the Court, although for different reasons.
6. The application seeking amendment of the written statement stands in no better position. As already stated, the case set up by the petitioner before the Collector was that he was entitled to no more than Rs. 3,80,000/- including the earnest money. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, he could not be allowed to make a claim before the Court for anything in excess of that amount. The proposed amendment sought to make such a claim was, therefore, rightly turned down.
7. Lest it should be assumed that I have not affirmed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the application was dishonestly made. I would specifically express the opinion that he was right when he so held. The stand of the petitioner throughout was that he deserved nothing more than an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- in all-a stand obviously based on the two agreements which he admittedly entered into. His change of front at the last moment was certainly actuated by greed of illicit gain and must, therefore, be characterised as dishonest.
8. For the reasons stated, the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/- in each of them.
9. Revisions dismissed.