Only the Collector may decide or refer compensation-apportionment disputes under Section 30; Tahsildar’s order is void.

The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Tahsildar’s order dated 15 July 2014 in Annexure P/1.

They claimed that the disputed land had been gifted to them under the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagya Adhiniyam, 1968, making the gift irrevocable. According to them, Jagannath and Rajiya Bai subsequently alienated the land in favour of respondent No. 5, after which the land was acquired by the Public Works Department; however, the compensation was paid to the private respondents instead of the petitioners.

The petitioners had submitted an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Collector, Bhopal, disputing the entitlement to compensation. The Collector referred the matter to the Tahsildar, who passed the impugned order.

During the proceedings, the petitioners were permitted to implead the Collector, District Bhopal, as respondent No. 8.

Whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to decide an application filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning the persons entitled to receive compensation?

Whether the Tahsildar’s order dated 15 July 2014 was liable to be quashed for having been passed without jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides that where a dispute arises regarding the apportionment of compensation or the persons to whom compensation is payable, the Collector may refer the dispute to the competent Court.

The statutory power under Section 30 is vested in the Collector, who must independently consider whether a dispute exists and, if so, refer it to the Court; the provision does not authorise the Tahsildar to adjudicate the dispute in place of the Collector.

An order passed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction is a nullity and is liable to be set aside.

The petitioners’ application was expressly filed before the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Instead of determining whether the dispute regarding entitlement to compensation required reference to the competent Court, the Collector referred the application to the Tahsildar.

The Tahsildar then adjudicated the matter and passed Annexure P/1. The Court held that Section 30 confers the relevant statutory responsibility on the Collector alone and that the Tahsildar was not competent to decide the application.

Consequently, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the order dated 15 July 2014 in Annexure P/1 was declared a nullity and set aside.

The matter was remitted to the Collector, Bhopal, with directions to decide the petitioners’ application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within 90 days from the parties’ appearance.

The parties were directed to appear before the Collector on 2 September 2026, and the writ petition was disposed of.