P.K. SREEKANTAN AND ORS. versus P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 04-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.K. SREEKANTAN AND ORS. 
v. 
P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 2006 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
.. _ 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894: 
c 
ss. I 8, JO-Reference u/s. I 8 for enhancement of compensation for land 
acquired-Jurisdiction of court to determine inter se dispute-Held, reference 
court derive jurisdiction from the reference made hence cannot determine 
anything beyond question referred and adjudicate the inter se dispute. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
D whether the Reference Court had jurisdiction under Section 30 of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 to entertain the dispute regarding the extent of the 
land acquired from each of the claimants when the reference in terms ofS.18 
of the Act was made only regarding the claim for enhancement of the 
compensation for the land acquired as shown in the award. 
E 
Partly dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The reference court derives jurisdiction from the reference 
made. References under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 
30 are conceptually different from each other. (24-G-H) 
F 
1.2. When the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation 
that alone is the matter referred and the Court has no jurisdiction to determine 
or consider anything beyond it. (25-B] 
(Rai) Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Seery. of State, AIR (1930) 
PC 64; Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd v. Allahabad 
G Vikas Pradhikaran and Anr., 12003] 5 SCC 561, and Ajjam Linganna and 
Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad and 
Ors., (2002] 9 SCC 426, referred to. 
2. Every tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but also bound 
to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction 
H 
20 
··'· 
--
I 
,,. . 
P.K. SREEKANTANv. P. SREEKUMARANNAIR[PASAYAT.J.] 
21 
comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction A 
of such tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or 
circumstances. Its obvious duty is to see that these facts and circumstances 
exist to invest it with jurisdiction, and where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction 
from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions 
under which the tribunal can function, it goes without saying that before that B 
tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that the 
conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen. 
Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (19791 2 SCC 572, 
relied on. 
Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan LR., (1855) 6 M.l.A. C 
134 (PC) and Kothamasu Kanakarathamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra 
Pradesh and Ors., AIR (1965) SC 304, referred to. 
3.1. The High Court's view that it was impermissible to deal with the 
matter covered under Section 30 of the Act while dealing with a reference in D 
terms of Section 18 of the Act is irreversible. [27-DI 
3.2. However, it is to be noted that there is no time limit for seeking 
reference under Section 30 of the Act, though it should always be done within 
a reasonable time. The reasonableness of time flows from the need for a 
finality to judicial proceedings. In the background of the facts situation of E 
the present case, it would be appropriate to permit the appellants to make an 
application before the competent Land Acquisition Authority seeking 
reference in terms of Section 30 of the Act. (27-E-FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5354 of2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 11.10.2002 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in L.A.A. No. I 09/2001. 
S.V. Rajan and K. Rajeev for the Appellants. 
F 
T.L.V. Iyer, Subramonium Prasad, Gopala Krishnan, Karun Mehta and G. G 
Prakash for the Resporidents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
H 
-
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. JO S.C.R. 
.___ 
A 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the 
Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. I & 2 
while dismi~3ing the appeal filed by the appellants and the State. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
B 
An extent of 2.8 I .20 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No. I 780/1, 
1780/4, I 780/9, I 781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the Kadakampally Village was acquired 
for the purpose of establishment of E.E.C. market at Anayara. Notification under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.