RAM KUMAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 21-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM KUMAR AND ORS. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 21, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 18 and 19. Land Acquisi-
____L_ tion-Compensation-Claimants application for reference under 
section 18 for claim of enhanc!!.d compensation in respect of the whole 
land acquired-But Land Schedule annexed with application indicating 
Khasra No. in respect of part of the lands-Collector making a state-
A 
c 
~ 
ment under section 19 to the Reference Court restricted to lands 
-
specified by Khasra No. and not in respect of the whole land acquired-
-
Held State acquiring land cannot take advantage of party's ignorance 
and consequent non-specification of Khasra No.-It is the duty of 
'~ , Collector to send full information to the Reference Court regarding the 
· 
entire land acquired. 
The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired and they 
w.ere awarded compensation for their lands. Being dissatisfied with the. 
compensation ·they made an application for a reference to the Court 
under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made 
a reference to the Additional District Judge and in its statement under 
-,..>-- Section 19 the Collector included onli those lands which were 
included by the appellants in their application for reference under 
section 18. The appellants filed an application before the Additional 
District Judge under section 151-153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for 
D 
E 
a direction to the Collector to file a revised statement giving the details 
F 
of the whole of their lands acquired for the purposes of claim of 
enhanced compensation. The Additional District Judge directed the 
Collector to furnish a correct statement under section 19. Against the 
..(· -:o:. order of the Additional District Judge the Union of India filed a revision 
petition before the High Court, which allowed the petition by holding 
that the power of the Collector to make a reference was restricted to 
what was stated by the appellants in their application for reference and 
only those Khasra Nos. whi~h were specifically mentioned in the 
Schedule annexed with the application under section 18 could be con-
sidered for the purposes of enhancement of the claim of compensation 
-~and not the entire land acquired. Hence this appeal against the order of 
the High Court. 
649 
Gt 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) 1 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High -Court~ 
this Court, 
HELD: 1. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the 
only requirement for the person interested who has not accepted the 
award is to move a written application to the Collector requiring that 
the matter be referred for the determination of the Court. One of the ..J,...__ 
grounds for not accepting the award is the amount of compensation; 
Once such application is moved it is the duty of the Collector to make a 
reference to the Court. Under section 19 of the Act while making the 
reference the Collector is required to state for the information of the 
Court the particulars as mentioned in clause (a) to (d) ofsub•section (1) 
. --
of Section 19 of the Act. Thus it is the duty of the Collector to mention 
not only the situation and extent of land but even particulars of any 
,,, 
trees, buildings or standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose land~~~ 
is acquired may not be fully conversant with the Khasra No. or area as ( 
entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State 
acquiring such land cannot be allowed to take any advantage of such 
ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an application is moved for mak-
ing a reference under section 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the 
Collector to send full information to the Court regarding the entire land 
acquired and it is thereafter the duty of the. Court to decide the matter 1 
inaccordancewithlaw. [657B-E] 
---...__-
2. From a perusal of the application filed under Section 18 of the 
Act along with the Schedule annexed therewith it is clear that the appel-
lants were claiming an enhancement in the compensation in respect of 
the entire land acquired and there was no question of asking for a 
reference for a limited portion of land. The appellants were not re-
· 
quired to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a prayer for enhancement~ 
of compensation while moving an application to .the Collector for 
making a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act. Th

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