[2017] 3 S.C.R. 282 A RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5598 of2017) B APRIL26, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.1 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 30 - Reference under - For refund of the earnest money by respondent no. 1 - Adjudication of. C when several civil suits with respect to refimd of earnest money and for specific pe1formance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent no.1 earlier in point of time - Held: Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions uls. 30 with regard to D apportionment of the compensation by directing refund of earnest money - It is not mandatory to make reference to the civil court u/s. 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit - Civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such Reference court rightly rejected the reference made uls. 30 and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the E regular civil suits - Order passed by the High Court for refund of the earnest money set aside . . Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Several civil suits with respect to refund of the earnest money and for specific performance of the agreement to F sale were filed by the respondent No.1 before reference was sought under Seetion 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions under Section 30 of the Act with regard to apportionment of the compensation G by directing refund of earnest money. It is not mandatory to make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit. In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent No.I. It was not appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30 of the Act. [Para 81 [287-E-Gl .H 282 RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 283 PVT. LTD. & ORS.

1.2 In the instant case, there were serious disputed A questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners due to the failure of the respondent No. 1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance 8consideration for payment to land owner. Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by them. The civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such reference court had rightly rejected the reference made under Section 30 of the Act and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the regular civil suits. The High Court in the impugned ·c judgment did not decide said objections raised by the appellants/ land owners without examining facts and circumstances of the case and due to pendency of civil suits, it was not open to the High Court to order refund of the earnest money. [Paras 9, 10)(287-H; 288-A-C] ·D

1.3 A perusal of Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that reference can be sought to a civil court with respect the measurement of the land, adequacy and quantum of compellsation, persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. The application under Section E18 is required to be filed within stipulated time whereas no limitation is prescribed under Section 30. It is discretionary upon the court to refer a dispute under Section 30 of the Act. The same is confined to the apportionment of the compensation or as to a person to whom the same is payable. The scope of Section 30 of the Act is narrow as compared to Section 18 of the Act. F [Para 11](288-D-EJ 1.4 Even if it is held that respondent No.1 was the "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act its case is not advanced so as to seek adjudication of the questions in the facts of the instant case in the reference under Section 30 of the G Act which remedy was discretionary. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The land owners are entitled for disbursement of the compensation. It would be subject to the outcome of the civil suits in which refund of the earnest money along with interest had been sought by the respondent No.1. In H . 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201"1] 3 S.C.R.

· A case the appellants fail and refund is directed in .civil suits, the landowners would have to pay it as per the judgment and decree which may be passed. [Paras 14, 15)(289-F-G; 290-A-B) GH. Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237; Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128 : [2003) 1 B SCR 73; Thiriveedhi Channiah v. Gudipudi Venkata Subba Rao (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 341 : [2007) 2 SCR 960; Mohammad Aki! Khan v. Premraj. Jawanmal Surana and Am: AIR 1972 Born. 217; Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) c by Lrs. & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 54; Sunder/al v. Paramsukhdas & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 366 : [1968) SCR 362; UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Katra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow. & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124 : (1996) 1 SCR 683; Coromandel Jndag Products Private Limited v. Garuda Chit and D Trading Company Private Limited and Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 601 : [2011) 12 SCR 115 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2003) 1 SCR 73 referred to Para 11 [2007) 2 SCR 960 referred to Para 11 E AIR 1972 Born. 217 referred to Para 13 (2011) 2 sec 54 referred to Para 14 [1968) SCR 362 referred to Para 14 F [1996) 1 SCR 683 referred to Para 14 [2011) 12 SCR 115 referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5598 of2017. G From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2015 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. F. A. No. 1941 of2013 ' ' WITH C. A. Nos. 5600, 5601 and 5606 of2017.

R. K. Raizada, .Sr. Adv, V. V. Gautam, Kaynat Sheikh, Shree Pal H RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 285 PVT. LTD. & ORS. Singh, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Manoranjan Podhi, Dipender Hooda, Ms. Jyoti, A Surj eet Singh, Atishi Dipankar, Ad vs. for the Appellant. S. B. Upadhyaya, Sr. Adv, Rabin Majurnder, Ms. Anishi Upadhyay, Nikhil Srivastava, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B ARUN MISHRA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The appellants-herein are aggrieved by the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A. No.1941 of2013, dated 4'h February, 2015. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has directed refund of the earnest C money by Mis. Tanmay Developers Private Ltd. Five agreements to sell were entered into between the Mis. Tanmay Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the land owners on 22.07 .2006, 22.07 .2006, 22.07 .2006, 24.07 .2006 and 21.06.2006. Out of the five agreements, earnest money of Rs.54,25,0001- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs,4,52,81,2501- as per agreement on 22.07.2006. As per agreement D dated 22.07.2006, Rs.1,56,000,001- was paid as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,54,37,5001-. As per yet another agreement on 22.07.2006, earnest money of Rs.21,00,0001- was paid out of a sum of Rs.1,50,93,7501-. As per agreement dated 24.07.2006, earnest money ofRs.90,00,000/-was paid out of total sale consideration E ofRs.7,71,31,2501-. At per agreementdated21.06.2006, earnest money of Rs.2,60,0001- was paid out of a total sale consideration or Rs.14,29,6871-. Period for performance of agreement had expired in the month of September/October, 2006. The land-owners on failure of purchaser to get the sale deed executed forfeited earnest money. F

3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on 18.3.2008 for acquiring the land which was the subject matter of the agreements. Three suits were filed for recovery of earnest money in September, 2009 and one suit · was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell by the respondent-· Mis. Tanmay Developer in the month of March, 2008 which was decreed .. G .on 18.04.2014 and the appeal filed by the land owners was pending at · the time when the impugned judgment and order was passed by the J;jigh Court. Similarly, three other suits which were filed for recovery of the earnest money were pending. Th(~ Land Acquisition Officer has H 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A passed the award on 19.09.2008. No reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought by Mis. Tanmay Developers; however, during the pendency of the suits/appeal the respondent had filed application under Section 30 of the Act for referring the dispute to the Civil Court for refund of earnest money alongwith interest. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the matter. 8

4. The Reference Court on 7.12.2012 has passed an award rejecting the prayer made by respondent No.1 on the ground that the dispute with respect to the forfeiture of earnest money and whether M/ s. Tanmay Developers Pvt. Ltd. was entitled for specific performance could not be adjudicated under Section 30 of the Act and it would not be C appropriate for the Reference Court to decide these disputed issues between the parties in view of civil suits/appeal. The Reference Court held that the dispute under Section 30 of the Act arising out of the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof involved the vexed question of title or the civil rights of the parties arising out of such D transaction could not be adjudicated by suhstituting the judicial forum into the civil court. The Reference Court could not decide questhn of refund of earnest money by applying the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Such powers can be exercis.:d by the Civil Courts. Aggrieved thereby the resi •ondent No.1 filed appeals before the High Court which have been allowed by the impugned E judgment and order.

5. The respondent No.1 had sought apportionment of the compensation only on the ground that agreement for sale had been entered into by the land owners and prayed for refund of the earnest money along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, since F the agreement had become incapable of being specifically performed due to the acquisition of land. It was contended on behalf of the land owners that Respondent No. I was not ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. Time was essence of the contract. There had been forfeiture of the earnest money on failure of respondent No. I to G get the sale deed executed within stipulated period. Respondent No. I was not having requisite amount of money hence could not be said to be ready and willing to purchase the property. In the facts and circumstances, the right of forfeiture of earnest money had been rightly exercised. Thus, respondent No.1 was not entitled for refund of the earnest money or apportionment of compensation particularly due to pendency of the civil H suits/appeal. RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 287 PVT. LTD. & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged A that High Court erred in directing refund of the earnest money along with interest at 6% per annum out of the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court has not decided various vital questions. The Reference Court had rightly declined to entertain the reference application under Section 30 of the Act seeking refund of B earnest money under guise of apportionment of compensation. As per the agreement, earnest money had been forfeited much before the acquisition of the land which was initiated by virtue ofnotification issued under Section 4 in the year 2008. Civil Suits had been filed and one of the matter first appeal had been filed against one of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, thus, those questions could not have been C taken over for decision by the Reference Court. Subsequent to filing of civil suits remedy of reference had been sought under Section 30. 7. On the other hand, it was contended by the teamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-developer that buyer would be a "person interested" within the purview of Section 3 (b) and 9 of the Act. D Any person interested could have sought the reference which had rightly made as the payment of earnest money under agreements was not in dispute. The High Court has rightly exercised the power to apportion compensation by directing refund of the earnest money along with interest. E

8. It was not rightly disputed that several civil suits with respect to refund of the earnest money and for specific performance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent No.I before reference was sought under Section 30 of the Act. Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, in our considered opinion, it was not at all F proper exercise of power to invoke provi.sions under Section 30 of the Act with regard to apportionment of the compensation by directing refund of earnest money. It is not mandatory to make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit. In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent N o.1. It was not G appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30. 9. In the instant case, there were serious disputed questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A due to the failure of the respondent No. 1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time.fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance consideration for payment to land owner. Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by B them. The Civil Court was already in seisin of the matter as such reference court had_ rightly rejected the reference made under Section 30 of the Act and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the regular civil suits. · 10. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not decided C aforesaid objections raised by the appellants/land owners without examining facts and circumstances of the case and due to pendency of civil suits, it was not open to the High Court to order refund of the earnest money.

11. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that reference can be sought to a civil court with respect (i) the measurement of the D land, (ii) adequacy and quantum of compensation, (iii) persons to whom it is payable and (iv) the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. The application under Section 18 is required to be filed within stipulated time whereas no limitation is prescribed under Section 30 of the Act. It is discretionary upon the court to refer a dispute under Section E 30 of the Act. The same is confined to the apportionment of the compensation or as to a person to whom the same is payable. The scope of Section 30 of the Act is narrow as compared to Section 18 as laid down in GH. Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237 and in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128. F 12. We need not go into the question whether holder ofagreement is "person interested"- as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. As we are. satisfied that respondent No. 1 could not have resorted to the remedy of reference for refund of the earnest money as for this very purpose he had filed civil suit earlier in point of time. In the reference petition refund of earnest money had been prayed with interest at the rate of 12 per G cent per annum .. In civil suit refund had been sought with 18 per cent interest per annum and in one suit specific performance was prayed.

13. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Thiriveedhi Channiah v. Gudipudi Venkata Subba Rao (Dead) by Li-s. & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 341, in which the appellant demanded refund H RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 289 PVT. LTD. & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.] of the advance amount on the premise that due to notification under A Section 4( 1), property could not be sold whereas the plea of forfeiture v;"!s advanced by the respondents. This High Court had ignored and overlooked that case arose out of the civil suit in which specific rP-rformance of agreement to sale was sought. This Court has found that parties were aware of the notification under Section 4(1) as such B right of forfeiture could have been exercised. The facts in the said case were different and the said decision could not have been utilized by the High Court for setting aside the well reasoned award passed by the reference court declining to entertain the prayer made by the respondents, in.view of the availing remedy of the civil suits. The High Court should have in fairness reflected that the said decision was rendered by this C Court in the context of civil suit. The High Court has referred it in the manner as if it was a case which has been decided under Section 30 of the Act with respect to the apportionment of the compensation.

14. The learned co·insel on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the decision of Boruoay High Court in Mohammad Aki! Khan v. D Prem raj Jawanmal Suran a and Anr. AIR 1972 Born. 217. The · decision is distinguishable as the civil suit had not been filed in the said case. Thus, we need not go into the correctness of the aforesaid decision. Reliance has also been placed on Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 54; and Sunder/al v. Paramsukhdas & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 366 to contend that E definition under Section 3(b) of the "person interested" is "inclusive" definition. Reliance for this purpose has also been placed on U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Kalra Properties

(P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124, laying down that a purchaser is entitled to step into the shoes of the owner to claim F compensation though could not question the notification for acquisition. In our opinion even if it is held that respondent No.1 was the "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act its case is not ·advanced so as to seek adjudication of the questions in the facts of this case in the reference under Section 30 of the Act which remedy was discretionary. The land owners also relied upon Coromande/ Jndag G Products Private Limited v. 'Garuda Chit and Trading Company Private Limited and Another (2011) 8 SCC 601 wherein this Court dealt with question when time is essence of the contract and in what circumstances earnest money could be forfeited. This question has to be gone into in civil suits. H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R. A 15. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The land owners are entitled for disbursement of the compensation. Obviously, it will be subject to the outcome of the civil suits in which refund of the earnest money along with interest had been sought by the respondent No. I. In case the appellants fail and refund is directed in civil suits, the landowners 8 shall have to pay it as per the judgment and decree which may be passed. No costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 282 A RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5598 of2017) B APRIL26, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.1 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 30 - Reference under - For refund of the earnest money by respondent no. 1 - Adjudication of. C when several civil suits with respect to refimd of earnest money and for specific pe1formance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent no.1 earlier in point of time - Held: Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions uls. 30 with regard to D apportionment of the compensation by directing refund of earnest money - It is not mandatory to make reference to the civil court u/s. 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit - Civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such Reference court rightly rejected the reference made uls. 30 and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the E regular civil suits - Order passed by the High Court for refund of the earnest money set aside . . Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Several civil suits with respect to refund of the earnest money and for specific performance of the agreement to F sale were filed by the respondent No.1 before reference was sought under Seetion 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, it was not at all proper exercise of power to invoke provisions under Section 30 of the Act with regard to apportionment of the compensation G by directing refund of earnest money. It is not mandatory to make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit. In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent No.I. It was not appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30 of the Act. [Para 81 [287-E-Gl .H 282 RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 283 PVT. LTD. & ORS.

1.2 In the instant case, there were serious disputed A questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners due to the failure of the respondent No. 1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance 8consideration for payment to land owner. Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by them. The civil court was already in seisin of the matter as such reference court had rightly rejected the reference made under Section 30 of the Act and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the regular civil suits. The High Court in the impugned ·c judgment did not decide said objections raised by the appellants/ land owners without examining facts and circumstances of the case and due to pendency of civil suits, it was not open to the High Court to order refund of the earnest money. [Paras 9, 10)(287-H; 288-A-C] ·D

1.3 A perusal of Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that reference can be sought to a civil court with respect the measurement of the land, adequacy and quantum of compellsation, persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. The application under Section E18 is required to be filed within stipulated time whereas no limitation is prescribed under Section 30. It is discretionary upon the court to refer a dispute under Section 30 of the Act. The same is confined to the apportionment of the compensation or as to a person to whom the same is payable. The scope of Section 30 of the Act is narrow as compared to Section 18 of the Act. F [Para 11](288-D-EJ 1.4 Even if it is held that respondent No.1 was the "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act its case is not advanced so as to seek adjudication of the questions in the facts of the instant case in the reference under Section 30 of the G Act which remedy was discretionary. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The land owners are entitled for disbursement of the compensation. It would be subject to the outcome of the civil suits in which refund of the earnest money along with interest had been sought by the respondent No.1. In H . 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201"1] 3 S.C.R.

· A case the appellants fail and refund is directed in .civil suits, the landowners would have to pay it as per the judgment and decree which may be passed. [Paras 14, 15)(289-F-G; 290-A-B) GH. Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237; Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128 : [2003) 1 B SCR 73; Thiriveedhi Channiah v. Gudipudi Venkata Subba Rao (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 341 : [2007) 2 SCR 960; Mohammad Aki! Khan v. Premraj. Jawanmal Surana and Am: AIR 1972 Born. 217; Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) c by Lrs. & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 54; Sunder/al v. Paramsukhdas & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 366 : [1968) SCR 362; UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Katra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow. & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124 : (1996) 1 SCR 683; Coromandel Jndag Products Private Limited v. Garuda Chit and D Trading Company Private Limited and Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 601 : [2011) 12 SCR 115 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2003) 1 SCR 73 referred to Para 11 [2007) 2 SCR 960 referred to Para 11 E AIR 1972 Born. 217 referred to Para 13 (2011) 2 sec 54 referred to Para 14 [1968) SCR 362 referred to Para 14 F [1996) 1 SCR 683 referred to Para 14 [2011) 12 SCR 115 referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5598 of2017. G From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2015 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. F. A. No. 1941 of2013 ' ' WITH C. A. Nos. 5600, 5601 and 5606 of2017.

R. K. Raizada, .Sr. Adv, V. V. Gautam, Kaynat Sheikh, Shree Pal H RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 285 PVT. LTD. & ORS. Singh, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Manoranjan Podhi, Dipender Hooda, Ms. Jyoti, A Surj eet Singh, Atishi Dipankar, Ad vs. for the Appellant. S. B. Upadhyaya, Sr. Adv, Rabin Majurnder, Ms. Anishi Upadhyay, Nikhil Srivastava, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B ARUN MISHRA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The appellants-herein are aggrieved by the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A. No.1941 of2013, dated 4'h February, 2015. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has directed refund of the earnest C money by Mis. Tanmay Developers Private Ltd. Five agreements to sell were entered into between the Mis. Tanmay Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the land owners on 22.07 .2006, 22.07 .2006, 22.07 .2006, 24.07 .2006 and 21.06.2006. Out of the five agreements, earnest money of Rs.54,25,0001- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs,4,52,81,2501- as per agreement on 22.07.2006. As per agreement D dated 22.07.2006, Rs.1,56,000,001- was paid as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,54,37,5001-. As per yet another agreement on 22.07.2006, earnest money of Rs.21,00,0001- was paid out of a sum of Rs.1,50,93,7501-. As per agreement dated 24.07.2006, earnest money ofRs.90,00,000/-was paid out of total sale consideration E ofRs.7,71,31,2501-. At per agreementdated21.06.2006, earnest money of Rs.2,60,0001- was paid out of a total sale consideration or Rs.14,29,6871-. Period for performance of agreement had expired in the month of September/October, 2006. The land-owners on failure of purchaser to get the sale deed executed forfeited earnest money. F

3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on 18.3.2008 for acquiring the land which was the subject matter of the agreements. Three suits were filed for recovery of earnest money in September, 2009 and one suit · was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell by the respondent-· Mis. Tanmay Developer in the month of March, 2008 which was decreed .. G .on 18.04.2014 and the appeal filed by the land owners was pending at · the time when the impugned judgment and order was passed by the J;jigh Court. Similarly, three other suits which were filed for recovery of the earnest money were pending. Th(~ Land Acquisition Officer has H 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A passed the award on 19.09.2008. No reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought by Mis. Tanmay Developers; however, during the pendency of the suits/appeal the respondent had filed application under Section 30 of the Act for referring the dispute to the Civil Court for refund of earnest money alongwith interest. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the matter. 8

4. The Reference Court on 7.12.2012 has passed an award rejecting the prayer made by respondent No.1 on the ground that the dispute with respect to the forfeiture of earnest money and whether M/ s. Tanmay Developers Pvt. Ltd. was entitled for specific performance could not be adjudicated under Section 30 of the Act and it would not be C appropriate for the Reference Court to decide these disputed issues between the parties in view of civil suits/appeal. The Reference Court held that the dispute under Section 30 of the Act arising out of the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof involved the vexed question of title or the civil rights of the parties arising out of such D transaction could not be adjudicated by suhstituting the judicial forum into the civil court. The Reference Court could not decide questhn of refund of earnest money by applying the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Such powers can be exercis.:d by the Civil Courts. Aggrieved thereby the resi •ondent No.1 filed appeals before the High Court which have been allowed by the impugned E judgment and order.

5. The respondent No.1 had sought apportionment of the compensation only on the ground that agreement for sale had been entered into by the land owners and prayed for refund of the earnest money along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, since F the agreement had become incapable of being specifically performed due to the acquisition of land. It was contended on behalf of the land owners that Respondent No. I was not ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. Time was essence of the contract. There had been forfeiture of the earnest money on failure of respondent No. I to G get the sale deed executed within stipulated period. Respondent No. I was not having requisite amount of money hence could not be said to be ready and willing to purchase the property. In the facts and circumstances, the right of forfeiture of earnest money had been rightly exercised. Thus, respondent No.1 was not entitled for refund of the earnest money or apportionment of compensation particularly due to pendency of the civil H suits/appeal. RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 287 PVT. LTD. & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged A that High Court erred in directing refund of the earnest money along with interest at 6% per annum out of the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court has not decided various vital questions. The Reference Court had rightly declined to entertain the reference application under Section 30 of the Act seeking refund of B earnest money under guise of apportionment of compensation. As per the agreement, earnest money had been forfeited much before the acquisition of the land which was initiated by virtue ofnotification issued under Section 4 in the year 2008. Civil Suits had been filed and one of the matter first appeal had been filed against one of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, thus, those questions could not have been C taken over for decision by the Reference Court. Subsequent to filing of civil suits remedy of reference had been sought under Section 30. 7. On the other hand, it was contended by the teamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-developer that buyer would be a "person interested" within the purview of Section 3 (b) and 9 of the Act. D Any person interested could have sought the reference which had rightly made as the payment of earnest money under agreements was not in dispute. The High Court has rightly exercised the power to apportion compensation by directing refund of the earnest money along with interest. E

8. It was not rightly disputed that several civil suits with respect to refund of the earnest money and for specific performance of the agreement to sale were filed by the respondent No.I before reference was sought under Section 30 of the Act. Once remedy in the form of civil suits had been resorted to, in our considered opinion, it was not at all F proper exercise of power to invoke provi.sions under Section 30 of the Act with regard to apportionment of the compensation by directing refund of earnest money. It is not mandatory to make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 and adjudication of dispute in an appropriate case can be ordered by way of the civil suit. In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent N o.1. It was not G appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30. 9. In the instant case, there were serious disputed questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A due to the failure of the respondent No. 1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time.fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance consideration for payment to land owner. Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by B them. The Civil Court was already in seisin of the matter as such reference court had_ rightly rejected the reference made under Section 30 of the Act and rightly asked parties to await outcome of the regular civil suits. · 10. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not decided C aforesaid objections raised by the appellants/land owners without examining facts and circumstances of the case and due to pendency of civil suits, it was not open to the High Court to order refund of the earnest money.

11. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that reference can be sought to a civil court with respect (i) the measurement of the D land, (ii) adequacy and quantum of compensation, (iii) persons to whom it is payable and (iv) the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. The application under Section 18 is required to be filed within stipulated time whereas no limitation is prescribed under Section 30 of the Act. It is discretionary upon the court to refer a dispute under Section E 30 of the Act. The same is confined to the apportionment of the compensation or as to a person to whom the same is payable. The scope of Section 30 of the Act is narrow as compared to Section 18 as laid down in GH. Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237 and in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128. F 12. We need not go into the question whether holder ofagreement is "person interested"- as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. As we are. satisfied that respondent No. 1 could not have resorted to the remedy of reference for refund of the earnest money as for this very purpose he had filed civil suit earlier in point of time. In the reference petition refund of earnest money had been prayed with interest at the rate of 12 per G cent per annum .. In civil suit refund had been sought with 18 per cent interest per annum and in one suit specific performance was prayed.

13. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Thiriveedhi Channiah v. Gudipudi Venkata Subba Rao (Dead) by Li-s. & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 341, in which the appellant demanded refund H RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. v. MIS. TANMAY DEVELOPERS 289 PVT. LTD. & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.] of the advance amount on the premise that due to notification under A Section 4( 1), property could not be sold whereas the plea of forfeiture v;"!s advanced by the respondents. This High Court had ignored and overlooked that case arose out of the civil suit in which specific rP-rformance of agreement to sale was sought. This Court has found that parties were aware of the notification under Section 4(1) as such B right of forfeiture could have been exercised. The facts in the said case were different and the said decision could not have been utilized by the High Court for setting aside the well reasoned award passed by the reference court declining to entertain the prayer made by the respondents, in.view of the availing remedy of the civil suits. The High Court should have in fairness reflected that the said decision was rendered by this C Court in the context of civil suit. The High Court has referred it in the manner as if it was a case which has been decided under Section 30 of the Act with respect to the apportionment of the compensation.

14. The learned co·insel on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the decision of Boruoay High Court in Mohammad Aki! Khan v. D Prem raj Jawanmal Suran a and Anr. AIR 1972 Born. 217. The · decision is distinguishable as the civil suit had not been filed in the said case. Thus, we need not go into the correctness of the aforesaid decision. Reliance has also been placed on Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 54; and Sunder/al v. Paramsukhdas & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 366 to contend that E definition under Section 3(b) of the "person interested" is "inclusive" definition. Reliance for this purpose has also been placed on U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Kalra Properties

(P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124, laying down that a purchaser is entitled to step into the shoes of the owner to claim F compensation though could not question the notification for acquisition. In our opinion even if it is held that respondent No.1 was the "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act its case is not ·advanced so as to seek adjudication of the questions in the facts of this case in the reference under Section 30 of the Act which remedy was discretionary. The land owners also relied upon Coromande/ Jndag G Products Private Limited v. 'Garuda Chit and Trading Company Private Limited and Another (2011) 8 SCC 601 wherein this Court dealt with question when time is essence of the contract and in what circumstances earnest money could be forfeited. This question has to be gone into in civil suits. H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R. A 15. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The land owners are entitled for disbursement of the compensation. Obviously, it will be subject to the outcome of the civil suits in which refund of the earnest money along with interest had been sought by the respondent No. I. In case the appellants fail and refund is directed in civil suits, the landowners 8 shall have to pay it as per the judgment and decree which may be passed. No costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.