B. Lakshmikantha Rao vs The Land Acquisition Officer

Eswara Prasad, J.—The appellant''s lands were acquired for providing house sites to the Weaker Sections by the respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act'', for short). An award was passed by the respondent, granting compensation of Rs. 13,423,50, including solatium and interest etc., for acquiring the lands of the appellant in an extent of Ac 1-09 guntas, situate in Lakshmidevipalli village. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed an application dated 25-2-85 (Ex. Rule 1) u/s 18 of the Act and requested the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court, under Ex. Rule 2. He raised the contention that the extent of the land acquired is more than Ac. 1-09 guntas and that the compensation paid is too low. The respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court, namely, Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and the matter was numbered as OP No. 129/82.

Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellant filed a claim statement claiming that the Government acquired Ac. 1-18 guntas of land and that he is entitled to the payment of compensation for the said extent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard. The respondent filed a counter stating that an extent of Ac. 1-18 guntas of land was acquired and that the payment of compensation was reasonable. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the compensation payable is Rs. 12/- per sq. yard with solatium at 30%, and interest at 12%, and did not go into the question of extent of the land acquired.

Both the appellant, as well as the respondent filed appeals against the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, in this Court. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant contended that the Civil Court erred in not deciding the dispute relating to the extent of the land acquired and that the enhancement of compensation was not proper. It was the contention of the respondent that the enhancement of compensation was proper. The learned single Judge dismissed both the appeals, holding that the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court was proper and that no relief, with regard to the extent of the land, could be given, as the reference by the respondent relates to only Ac. 1.08 guntas of land and that in the absence of any specific reference regarding the extent of the land u/s 18 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the said question.

The only contention raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the Civil Court ought to have gone into the question of the extent of the land acquired from the appellant, when that was one of the objections raised by him in his application u/s 18 of the Act. A question therefore, arises as to what is a reference that the Civil Court has to adjudicate under the Land Acquisition Act?

According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Civil Court was bound to adjudicate on the question of the extent of the land acquired from the appellant, based on the objections u/s 18 of the Act, filed by the appellant, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not confined merely to the statement contained in the order of reference made by the respondent. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that the Civil Court has to give its findings based on the reference order of the Land Acquision Officer.

It is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, in order 1O decide the scope of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under part III of the Land Acquisition Act.

''Section 18 : Reference to Court :--

(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 compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken."

"Section 19. Collector''s statement to the Court :

(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the court, in writing under his hand :

(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon ;......

(2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon and of the statements in writing made or delivered by, the parties interested respectively."

Section 20. Services of notice :

The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served, on the following persons, namely;

(a) ........

(b) ........

(c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to amount of compensation, the Collector.

Section 21. Restriction on scope of proceedings :

The scope of enquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection.''

It is seen from a reading of Sections 18, 21 and in particular, Section 20(c) that the emphasis is on the objections filed by the person who has not accepted the award and the Court has to adjudicate with reference to the objections filed by the persons affected by the award.

The Land Acquisition Officer has a duty to make the reference, as laid down u/s 19 of the Act. In Bhagwati v. Ramkali,( AIR 1939 PC 133) the duties of the Collector are laid down in the following words :

"Collector''s duties in making the reference are set out in Section 19 under the provisions of which the only information required as to the grounds of objection is that contained in Sub-section (2) which requires the attachment of a Schedule giving particulars of the notice served upon and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively."

It was further held that the Court had before it the questions raised in the objections which had to be decided. In Collector Vs. Amin Chand, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Court arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector''s award. It is confined to the consideration of that objection. It was similarly held in Babubhai Khusaldas Gandhi and Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Corporation, Ahmedabad, that Section 18 - 21 of the Act indicate that the scope of enquiry before the Court in a reference under Sections 18 and 19 is to consider the objections made by the persons interested u/s 18.

From the aforesaid provisions and the rulings, it must be held that reference by the officer to the Court is in respect of the "objections" to the award, as filed by the claimants. The Officer merely sends these objections for adjudication to the Civil Court. The content of the objections as summarised in the order or letter of reference by the Officer cannot, in our view, by itself be equated with the reference. It has to be read along with the actual objections to the award as raised by the claimant. These objections are, in fact, actually transmitted to the Civil Court along with the order or letter of the officer. This is also the procedure indicated in the A.P. Land Acquisition Manual, which contains the administrative instructions.

Our attention was also drawn to a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Lila Mahton Vs. Sheo Govind Singh, . Having held that :

"the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these two sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector''s award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection".

It was further held that :

"the ''objection'' mentioned in Section 20 and Section 21, means the ''objection'' made u/s 18(1) or the ''dispute'' which arises under Sect ion 30 and which is referred to the Court for its decision".

The Division Bench, went on to make some observations which might lead to the impression that more weight is to be given to the actual letter of reference rather than the contents of the objections to the award as filed by the claimant. The Bench has observed that the Court, u/s 18, has no jurisdiction to look into the proceedings anterior to the reference before the Collector. If the Bench intended to lay down any proposition that the objections filed by the claimant earlier after the award are to be ignored, we cannot, with great respect, agree to such a view.

From Ex. Rule 1, which is an application dated 25-2-82 given by the appellant to the respondent to refer the matter to the Court u/s 18 of the Act, we find that the appellant claimed that the land acquired was not correctly surveyed and measured and that the extent of the land is more than Ac. 1-09 guntas. In the Civil Court, the appellant filed a claim statement stating that the Government acquired Ac. 1-18 guntas of his land. In the counter filed by the respondent, it was admitted that the Government acquired Ac. 1-18 guntas of land.

The learned Subordinate Judge therefore ought to have framed a point for consideration regarding the extent of the land acquired from the appellant. Though the learned Subordinate Judge referred to the claim statement filed by the appellant, as well as the counter filed by the respondent, no reference was made to Ex. Rule 1 and consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge did not give any finding regarding the extent of the land acquired. We respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is confined only to the order or letter of reference written by the Collector, and that the civil court cannot go into the objections of the claimant. We are of the view that the Civil Court is bound to decide on the objections raised by the claimant in his application u/s 18 of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Court is not confined only to the order of reference made by the Collector.

We would have normally remitted the matter to the Civil Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after determining the actual extent of the land acquired from the appellant. But having regard to the fact that the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1971, and the possession of the land was taken from the appellant on 16-4-1977, we consider it inexpedient to remit the matter to the Civil Court at this distance of time. We, therefore, direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, to frame the following point for consideration :

"What is the actual extent of the land acquired from the petitioner."?

and to take additional evidence, if required, and to proceed to give a finding on the said point and to return the evidence to this Court, together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal will be taken up for determination after the receipt of the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.