Delhi District Court
Jeet Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others. on 30 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS.NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WAKF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others.
30.07.2012.
Present: Mr.Sanjay Rathi, counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondents.
Mr.Tarun Verma, counsel for the SBI.
1. File has been taken up again in the post lunch session for orders on the maintainability of the case. Arguments have already been heard at length in the pre-lunch session. I have also carefully perused the material on record, relevant provisions of the law of the precedents on the point.
2. This is a petition under Section 31 (2) read with other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) filed by the petitioner against the respondents. This petition was presented before the learned District Judge, Delhi and assigned to the Court vide order dated 05.03.2004 of the learned District Judge, Delhi.
3. At the outset, it is clear on the perusal of the record that a reference under section 31 of the LA Act has already been made earlier as stated in the office letter sent by Mr.R.S.Malik, Tehsildar (CP) for Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi District bearing number F.SDM/Ch.Puri/2000/MALCHA/524 dated 11.02.2004 addressed to LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 1 of 6 ::-
Mr.Malik Raj and Mr.Sajjan that the amount of compensation awarded vide award number 30, 31 and 32/ 1911-1912 of Village Malcha, New Delhi had been deposited in the Court of Divisional Judge, Delhi on 21.12.1912 under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has applied under RTI to all the concerned authorities to find out the position about the earlier reference but he has not been given any satisfactory answer and he would be filing an appeal against the same to the concerned appellate authority. He has also submitted that the petitioners being illiterate, poor and ignorant are unable to run from one office to another to find out the position of the earlier reference and therefore, the present petition may be considered and continued.
5. However, when one reference has already been made to the Court, a second petition such as the one under consideration is not maintainable as the first and second similar petitions cannot continue simultaneously and the second petition which the petition under consideration is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The fact that the petitioners may be illiterate, poor and ignorant does not in any manner show that the legal formalities should be ignored a second petition should be entertained when earlier petition is pending on the same facts.
6. Further, also this petition, as such is not maintainable in view of the settled law, as it is without a valid reference by the Land Acquisition Collection.
7. This is a petition under Section 31 (2) read with other LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 2 of 6 ::-
provisions of the LA Act filed by the petitioner against the respondents.
8. The object of the sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act is to provide an alternative procedure for the Collector for apportionment in complicated cases. He may himself decide the question of apportionment and complete his award as required by section 11 leaving it to the parties to obtain a reference under section 18, in case they feel dissatisfied with his award. If they accept his award he would no doubt record the same as contemplated in section 29. But if he experiences any difficulty on the question of apportionment he might act under section 31, although he is not compelled to do so.
9. The jurisdiction of the Court dealing with a reference under sections 30 and 31 of the Act is confined to consideration of the dispute that is expressly referred to it by the Collector. An addition of parties may indeed be made when the persons who desire to be added as part do not raise any new dispute but want to place other materials before the court in connection with the dispute that is referred to it by the Collector.
10. After the award has been passed and the amount has been deposited in the Civil Court and the matter has been referred under section 30 of the Act, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the reference under section 30 of the Act, if he is so aggrieved. But, he cannot agitate the same in writ petition, which is confined to passing of the award, may be the petitioners would be aggrieved by reference under section 30.
11. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported as Rabari Mahadev Amra v. Prant Officer, Radhanpur, AIR LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 3 of 6 ::-
1979 Gujrat 192 has has submitted that a petition under Section 31 (2) of the LA Act need not be in writing but it can be made orally also. As the petitioner are poor and ignorant persons, they are not aware about the legal formalities and it is prayed that the petition as such may be considered.
12. After perusing the judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the same is not applicable to the present case as this a petition under Section 31 (2) of the LA Act (which is in writing) and in view of the settled position of law, it required to be referred to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector failing which the same is not maintainable. The issue here is not whether such a petition is to be in writing or oral but is whether it can continue in the Court without a reference from the Land Acquisition Collector.
13. The hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of cases, has observed that there has to be a valid reference to the Court. In the case reported as Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1513, it has been held as follows:
"It has been observed that the Valid reference is a pre-condition for the Civil Court to adjudicate the objections raised in the reference application. In this case, it is found by the High Court that the appellant had not made any application under Section 18(1). The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine higher compensation, as laid down under Section 23 of the Act, would arise only when a valid reference has been made under Section 18 within the prescribed limitation. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded on a valid reference and then the Civil Court gets jurisdiction to determine the compensation on the basis of the objections raised by the claimant."
14. In the case reported as Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahadbad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, AIR LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 4 of 6 ::-
2003 Supreme Court 2302(1), it has been observed as follows:
"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 wide the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Parmatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. Of State, AIR 1930 PC 84. This was a case where the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the measurements of the land given in the award. Before the reference Court, the claimant raised objection regarding the measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High Court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the claimed raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thus; "Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter"
referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it".
15. Therefore, it is clear from the above elaborated settled law that the petition under section 18, 30 or 31 of the LA Act can be entertained by the Court only if there is valid reference which is a pre-condition. In the present case it is an admitted position that the petitioners have not filed any application or petition under section 30 and 31 of the LA Act before the Land Acquisition Collector and the present petition had been filed directly before the Court. As this Court can have jurisdiction in the matter only if it is referred by the Land Acquisition Collector, this petition is not LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 5 of 6 ::-
maintainable as it has been filed directly in the Court without a valid reference.
16. Therefore, accordingly in view of the foregoing reasons the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the petition is not maintainable as it is the without a valid reference and there is an earlier reference which is pending and accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.
17. However, it is also made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to appear in the earlier reference and agitate their rights, as per law.
18. After the completion of formalities, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 30th day of July, 2012. ADJ-02, Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi.
LAC Number : 04/2012.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0972202008.
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 6 of 6 ::-