Summary
The developer could not use a discretionary Section 30 acquisition reference to obtain earnest-money refunds while its earlier civil suits on the same disputes were pending. Forfeiture, readiness and willingness and contractual relief required adjudication in those suits. The Court left open whether an agreement holder was a person interested.
Issues
- Whether a Section 30 reference should decide refunds already claimed in pending civil proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18 and 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 30’s discretionary, narrower apportionment jurisdiction was inappropriate for duplicating these pending contract disputes. (¶ 8–12)
Held
- Serious disputes over forfeiture and contractual performance were already before civil courts. The reference court properly declined to decide them, and the High Court erred in ordering refund without resolving those objections. (¶ 8–10)
- Even assuming interested-person status, it did not justify this reference in the circumstances. The merits of forfeiture remained for the civil proceedings. (¶ 12–14)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court order set aside. Compensation disbursement to landowners permitted subject to the civil suits and any resulting refund decree.