LexSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER versus KUNDAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196J Apa 2s. 882 SUPREME dOURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. STA1'E OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER "· KUNDAN SINGH AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, · and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Land A.cqusition-Part of the property acquired-Land Acquistion Officer fixes compenBation by award-Reference- .Uespondent raises objection-No applir.ation filed before award- Whether maintainable-Scope of reference-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No. 1of1894), ss. 18, 23, 49. The appellant acquired a plot of land on which the respondent's property stands, consisting of the main house and an outhouse with an open space in front of them. The land acquired covered a space 50 ft. in width for the electric wire to run over and this included a portion of the open space as also the .outhouse. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed a compensation of Rs. 4,451/5/6. Not being satisfied with this award the·respondents appealed under s. 18 of the Land Acqui- sition Act, 1894. One of the grounds taken in the petition for reference was that the other lands and buildings contiguous to the Jarid and building acquired which belonged to them had not . been acquired, they had to suffer a huge loss, the. electric' rope-line passed close to the rest of the property and ro it ·could not be used. as it might be dangerous for human habi- tation. On this basis compensation of about Rs. 21,765/8/· which had been spent in the constructions of the principal house was claimed Before the District Judge, on reference, Respondent No. I gave evidence that he had made an application before the award was given for the payment of the higher compensation on the above 'lated g10und. The District Judge considered this ground and held that since only a narrow strip of land was left in front of the main building its utility was deminished and award~d an additional compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court in which they prayed for a declaration that the Land Acquisition Officer should acquire the main building along with the oiher proper- ties acquired. The present appellant contended that the res- pondents should not be allowed to raise this contention 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 383 because this pica could have been raised by them only under s. 49 of the Act and the plea was foreign to the scope of the reference out of which the aµpeal arose. It was also contended that his plea wa• not taken before the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court rejected these contentions of the Appellants and granted the declaration a• prayed for by the re•pondeni.. The present appeal is by way of a certificate granted by the High Court. Substantially the same contentions as were raised before the High Court were raised in this appeal before this Court. Held that the claim was made by the respondents under s. 23 of the Act and not under s. 49 and what they have in fact done is to claim additional compensation under s. 23 (l). It is clear that the scope of the enquiry under s. 18 (I) is specifically indicated by the section itself and the grounds on which objection can be taken. The Court cannot con•ider the pleas raised by the owner of the property under s. 49 in an enquiry under s. 18 (1). The scheme of s. 49 is that the owner has to express his desire that the whole of hi• house should be. acquired before the award is made and once such a desire is expressed the procedure pre•cribed by s. 49 ha• to be followed. This proce- dure is distinct and separate from the procedure which has to be followed in m 1king .i reference under s. 18. In the present case the respondents have not taken any steps to e·xpress their desire that the whole of their house should be acquired and it was not open to the High Court to allow them to raise this point in appeal which arose out of an order passed by the DistrictJudge under s. 18 . .C..se law reviewed. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Secretary of State for India in Couneil, ·(1929) L. R. 57 I. A. 100. The Secretary of State for India in Council, v. R. Narayanaswami Chettiar, (1931) I. L. R. 55 Mad. 391, dis!inguished. Krishna Das Roy v. The Land Acquisition Collector of Pabna, (191!) 16 C. W. N. ~27. CrvJL APPELLATE JumsmcTION : Ci\'.il Appeal No. 219 of 1962. J96J Stat1 of Bih.r •. Kunda Siritli J96J Stall ef Bihar v. K.,,.dan SU.th 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1960 of the Patna High Court in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.