Durga Devi vs Collector

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in the course of which 27 Kanals and 7 Marias of

land comprising of Khasra Nos. 559/310/M and 309 and a building thereon in village Naubad Tehsil Jammu belonging to Wazir Bhagat Ram was

acquired by the Government for the Housing Department under Notifications RD 133 of 1960 dated. 20-6-1960 and RD 8 of 1961 dated 31-1-

1961 Issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively The Collector Jammu made an award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition

Act on 28-6-1961 and fixed compensation at Rs. 1,02288-50 Including Jabirana at the rate of 15 per cent for the property mentioned above. The

award was approved by the Government and the approval was communicated to the Collector on 21-7-1961. The property of Wazir Bhagat

Ram was placed under the Court of Wards and Pt. Hardlal Manager of Court of Wards received payment of the compensation for the property

acquired by the Government. Shrimati Durga Devi mother of W. Bhagat Ram filed objections to the award and also made an application u/s 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act on 2-8-1961 requesting the Collector to refer the matter to the Court. In her objections she stated that the compensation

was inadequate and that the land was worth Rs. 1.000 per Marla and she claimed compensation for fruit trees at Rs. 80,000. The Collector made

a reference to the Court of District Judge. No objection was filed on behalf of the Court of Wards But before the District Judge the Collector

resisted the application of Mst Durga Devi on the ground that she had no locus stand to file the application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

inasmuch as she was not the person interested and that the compensation awarded was adequate. Various issues were raised before the District

Judge and the important issue was whether Mst Durga Devi mother of W Bhagat Ram was ""person interested"" as defined in the Land Acquisition

Act The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Mst. Durga Devi is not the ""person interested"" and therefore, the reference made by the

Collector is not competent. Mst. Durga Devi has appealed against the order of the District Judge.

It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that she being the mother of W Bhagat Ram, the owner of the property received maintenance allowance

out of the property belonging to W. Bhagat Ram which is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and therefore she is a person

interested in the property It is contended that as the maintenance allowance will increase with the increase in the amount of compensation the

Appellant is the "" person interested "" within the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads

as under:

18 (1) Any person interested who has not accepted 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 person

to whom it is pay able, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

person interested"" is defined in Section 8(b) of the Act as under:

The expression person interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under

this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.

The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Mst. Durga Devi, mother of W Bhagat Ram, the owner of the land, acquired by the

Government is an interested person within the definition of the term given in the Land Acquisition Act. u/s 18 only a person interested is competent

to make a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court whether or not the amount of

compensation is adequate. It is not disputed that the land belonged to Wazir Asu and after his death W Bhagat Ram inherited his entire property. It

appears that the property inherited by W. Bhagat Ram was placed under the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Court of Wards

Act. The Appellant received maintenance allowance from the property which was managed by the Court of Wards. As the Appellant cannot claim

any interest in the compensation awarded by the Collector in regard to the property acquired by the Government, she would not come within the

category of ""person interestedâ€​ as defined in the Act. The Appellant therefore was not competent to make an application to the Collector

requiring that the matter be referred to the Court for the determination of the amount of compensation. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that

once reference is made by the Collector it was not open to the Court to go into the question whether the reference was valid or not. This

contention is without any force. If the Collector makes a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act it is for the Court to satisfy itself that the

reference made by the Collector complies with the specified conditions so as to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the same. In doing so the Court

is not sitting in appeal or revision on the decision of the Collector It is merely examining whether the reference made under the Act is one which is

strictly in conformity with the provision of the Act. If the Court finds that the statutory conditions have not been complied with it is fully competent

to hold that the reference is not maintainable.

In this view we are supported by a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court reported in Kana Navanna Navanna Narayanappa Naidu Vs.

Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, in which it has been held

The necessary 'since qua non of the reference by Collector u/s 18 is the basic fact that the application for such a reference must be made, in

accordance with the provisions of that section and within the period specified in the proviso to that section If those provisions are not complied

with there cannot be any valid, application at all and necessarily if such an application does not exist a positive reference is incapable of existence

No Court can be compelled to adjudicate upon matters which do not come before it in strict conformity with the requirements of law. It is within

the inherent power of the Court to find out whether the matter that comes before it, is in proper form and in accordance with the requirement of

particular statutes.

The same view was taken by Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. L.D. Silva and Others, in which it was observed:

A Collector can only make a reference in accordance with the provisions of law and if he transgresses those provisions it is open to the

Government to challenge his action in Court and it is open to the Court to examine the question of the validity of the order of reference. It is open

to the District Judge to go into the question of the validity of the order of reference and to refrain from proceeding further in the matter in case the

reference is found to be ultra vires.

In a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High. Court, AIR 1960 Lah 229, Abdul Sattar v. Hamida Bibi it has been held as under:

The Court functioning under the Land Acquisition Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference under that Act is

made to it by an authority competent to make the reference and that the reference relates to a matter which can be referred to it under that Act.

The Manager of the Court of Wards did not make any application to the Collector requiring him to make a reference to the District Judge on the

question of compensation. No one on behalf of the Court of Wards raised any objection before the District Judge in regard to the compensation

being inadequate.

Moreover, Section 20 of the Court of Wards Act was a clear bar to the suit brought by the Appellant in respect of the property which was

under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. Section 20 of the Court of Wards Act provides that no suit by or on behalf of a Ward, or

affecting any property under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, shall be brought without the authority of the Court of Wards or of such

officer as it may appoint in that behalf. The Appellant has not shown that she was authorized by the Court of Wards to make an application to the

Collector requiring a reference to be made to the District Judge. On the other hand, we find that no objection was raised on behalf of the Court of

Wards before the District Judge in regard to the quantum of compensation. under these circumstances the District Judge has rightly held that Mst.

Durga Devi, mother of W Bhagat Ram not being a person interested as envisaged by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. was not competent

to make an application requiring the Collector to make a reference to the District Judge for the determination of the amount of compensation for

the land acquired by the Government. We find no force in this appeal which is dismissed but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs.

J.N. Bhat, J.

I agree