K. KANKARATHNAMMA AND OTIIERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 23-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1'64 
K. KANKARATHNAMMA AND OTIIERS 
,.,._,, Zl 
"· 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTIIBRS 
(K. SuBBA RA<> AND J. R. MuoHOLKAR) 
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (1 of 1894), s. 18(1)(2)-No reference to 
Court on the queJtion of quantum of compensation-Court if com-
petent to deal with such matter-No objection to the proceeding1 be-
fore the court by the State-Defect if deemed to be waived. 
On a dispute with regard to the entitlement to the compensation award-
ed to the appellants in respect of certain land acquired by the State, the 
Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the court for the apportion· 
ment of the compensation amount among the various claimants. 
Six of 
the appellants did not accept the award of the Land Acquisition Officer 
and made applications to him for referring the matter, for determination 
by the court. No reference was made by him in pursuance of these appli· 
catiolls 
When the matter came up before the Court it proceeded on the 
footing that the reference made to it was not merely limited to the appor· 
tionment of compensation but also with respect to the amount of com-
pensation. 
No objection was raised by the State before the Subordinato 
Judge that in the absence of any reference upon the applications of six of 
the 
appellants the Court was incompetent to deal with 
that 
matter. 
When the matter went up in appeal before the High Court, the Govern-
ment Pleader raised the question that in the absence of a reference on 
the question of quantum of compensation, the Court had no jurisdiction 
to consider that matter at all. The High Court, allowed this plea to be 
raised before it but ultimately negatived it. and it also 
modified 
the 
finding of the Court as to the amount of compensation. The appellants 
contended before the High Court that by reason of the failure of the 
3tate to raise the plea before the Subordinate Judge as to the absence 
of a reference the State must be deemed to have waived the point. The 
High Court· accepted this argument upon the view that this was not a 
case of inherent lack of jurisdiction and that the defect in the procedure 
was such as could be waived. 
· llcld: (i) On consideration of the relevant prov1s1ons contained 
in 
«.. t~ of t.he J_and Acq1Jisition Act, the jurisdiction of the court arises solely 
on the basis of a reference made to it. Wherever jurisdiction is given by 
• statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms 
contained therein, it is a universal principle that those terms should be 
complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they 
are not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise. Therefore, it was 
• case of lack of inherc-.t jurisdiction and the failure of the State to ob. 
feet to the proceedings before the Court on the ground of an absence ol 
I 
• 
6 S.C..I:~. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
295 
•cfcrencc in so far as the determination of compensation was concerned 
cannot amount to waiver or acquiescence. Indeed, 
when there is an 
absence of 'inherent jurisdiction, the defect cannot be waived nor can be 
aired by a:quiesccncc. 
(ii) Tbe court had no jutisdiction to determine the amount of CO!ll· 
.,ensation and thus go behind the order of the Land Acqui1ition OlllCor. 
. Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and others v. Mtet Mynoodeen Khan Wullu4 
Mter Subroodeen Khan Bahadur, 6 M.L.A. 134, Alderson v. Pdli•<r and 
unother, [1901] 2 K.B. 833 and Seth Badri Prasad and 01her8 v. Seth\ 
Nagarmal and others, [1959] Supp. (I) S.C.R. 769, relied on. 
Venkata Krishnayya Garu v. Secretary of State, A.l.R. 1939 (P.C. 39-
60 M.L.J. 299, distinguished. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JurusDicTloN: Civil Appeal No. 325 
of 1962. 
' 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 4, 
1959 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit 
No. 489 of 1954 . 
K. Rhimsankaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer, 
for 
the 
appellants. 
p. R'am Reddy, T. V. R. Tatachari and B. R. G. K. 
Achar, for respondent No. 1. 
January 23, 1964. 
The Judgment 
of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment 
Mudlwlw 1. 
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which it reduced 
the am11unt of compensation awarded to the appellants by 
the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in respect of certain 
lands bt:longing to them which were acquired by the State. 
The lands in question are 
survey Nos. 
281/2, 
339/1 to 8 and 338/1 to 3 which are situate at a short 
distance from the town of Vijayawad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.