PRAYAG UPNIVESH AWAS EVAM NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. versus ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 16-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
PRAYAG UPNIVESH AWAS EVAM NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMIT! LTD. A
v.
ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND ANR.
APRIL 16, 2003
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Ss. 17, 18 & 30: Land acquisition-Award-
Reference-Enhancement of compensation-Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Held:
B
Petition filed under Section 30 can not appropriately be converted into C
Reference under Section 18, it is not proper to implead appellant as a party
to Reference when he was not made party to petition filed under Section 30-
Court lacks jurisdiction to decide on the issue of compensation which was not
referred to it by way of raising objections against the Award
Respondent-Authority had acquired certain lands under the D
provisions of Land Acquisition Act and an Award was passed. The land
in question was Government land and earlier it was given to the lessee.
The period of lease expired in 1960. Since both the Government and the
lessee claimed compensation in respect of the said land, the Special Land
Acquisition officer (SLAO) referred the dispute to the Civil Court under
Section 30 of the Act. The Court having found an application filed by the E
appellant under Section 18 of the Act was on the file of SLAO and yet he
was not made party in the petition, passed an order impleading the
appellant as party by treating the petition as Reference petition and
disposed it by modifying the Award, enhancing the compensation and also
directed sharing of Award between the Government and the appellant in F
certain proportion. Respondents challenged the Award and the High Court
.;et aside the modified Award. Hence the present appeal.
It was contended for the appellant that since Reference petition filed
by the appellant was already submitted along with the petition filed by
the SLAO, the Reference was perfect under Section 18 of the Act.
G
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since the
Reference was not properly filed as per provisions under Section 18 of
the Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such petition as Reference
petition.
567
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2003) 3 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I. The letter from SLAO (Special Land Acquisition Officer)
by itself is not sufficient to make it as a Reference purported to have been
made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Additional
District Judge erred in assuming that there was a Reference under
B Section 18 of the Act. The subsequent impleadment of the Samiti as a party
to the Reference, which \\'.~S pending under Section 30 of the Act, and the
conversion of the same also as a Reference under Section 18, were illegal
and has rightly been quashed by the High Court. (571-D-EI
C
1.2. It is well established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction
only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by
the Land Acquisition Officer and that Civil Court has got the jurisdiction
and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The Reference
Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which
are not referred to it. (571-FI
D
E
F
G
Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secretary of State, AIR (1930) PC
64; Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (197912 SCC 572; K.
Kankarathanamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 119641 6
SCR 294 and Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition officer, (200219 SCC 426,
relied on.
1.3. In the instant case, there was no Reference by the SLAO under
Section 18 of the Act and the appellant-Samiti was not before the SLAO.
Even the application allegedly filed has rightly been characterized as
suspicious by the High Court as no mention has been made by the SLAO
in the Reference letter. In the absence of a proper Reference, the
Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the question of
enhancement of compensation. When such an objection was not referred
to the Court, there was complete lack of jurisdiction. (574-A-BI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3064 of2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.1998 of the Allahabad High
Court in F.A. No. 628 of 1995.
Sunil Gupta, Pramod Dayal and Ms. Lipika Sharma for the Appellant.
D.A. Davey, Rakesh U. Upadhyay, B.P. Yadav and T.N. Singh and
H A.K. Srivastava for the Respondents.
-
. .I
PRA YAG UPNIVESH AW AS EVAM NlRMAN SAHKARI SAMm LID.~. ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHJKARAN IBALAKRISHNAN. J.j 5 69
The

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