Supreme Court of India
Balram Chandra vs State Of U.P on 24 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR SCW 2397, 1995 (3) SCC 723, 1995 ALL. L. J. 1161, (1996) 1 LANDLR 14, (1995) 2 RENTLR 151, (1995) 3 SCR 726 (SC), (1995) 2 SCJ 243, 1995 REVLR 2 18, (1995) 2 KER LT 16, AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1552
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 9056 of 1995 PETITIONER: BALRAM CHANDRA RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 1995 (3) SCR 726 The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Notification under s.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette on October 19,1957 followed by a declaration under s.6 published on November 6, 1957. The possession was taken on December 7, 1957. The Collector made his award on September 29, 1958. The petitioner sought for reference under s.18 and the Collector referred the matter on November 8, 1986. The District Judge in his award dated December 16,1985 declared the notification under s.4(l) and the declaration under s.6 to be null and void. Against that, an appeal was filed before the High Court under s.54. By the judgment and order dated October 31, 1994, the Division Bench has set aside the order holding that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the notification under s.4(l) to be void. Thus, this SLP.
Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual vehemence, contended that the notification under s.4(l) did not contain the particulars required thereunder and the District Judge was unable to proceed with the determination of the compensation pursuant to the reference under s.18. Therefore, the District Judge was within his power to declare the notification and declaration as not valid in law though it may be wrong to say that they are null and void. We find no force in the contention.
The Collector after making enquiry and passing the award, is re-quired under s.11 to consider the questions of: (i) the true area of the land required for determination of the compensation; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the appor-tionment of the compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively interested in receiving the compensation. On determination of such of these questions and making the award under s.11, the claimants, on receipt of notice, are entitled to receive it on protest and to make an application under s.18 of the Act with objections to the extent of the nature of the land, or the amount awarded or the persons entitled to receive compensation. When such an application within the limit prescribed under the proviso to s.18 is made, the Collector is required, under s.19 of the Act, to refer the objections with a statement with regard to the objections raised, to the Civil Court. Thereon, under s.20 of the Act, the reference Court is enjoined to give notice not only to the claimants but also to the Collector and persons interested in the land and the Court is required to go into the objections raised.
Thus, it could be seen that the District Judge is enjoined to go into the objections raised by the claimants in making enquiry under s.20 and to pass award under s.26 of the Act with reference to the objections raised by the claimants in respect of the area of the land or the amount of compensation. It is, therefore, be clear that the reference Court cannot go behind the reference and give a declaration that the notification under s.4(1) and declaration under s.6 are null and void or illegal. His duty and power are confined vis-a-vis the provisions contained under ss.11, 18 and 20 to 23 and he would not traverse beyond his power.
The High Court was, therefore, right in its conclusion that the District Court has committed grievous error of law in declaring the notification under s.4(1) and declaration unders 6 to be null and void and inoperative. We do not find any ground warranting interference. The SLP is dismissed accordingly.