Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On 5-11-1954 the Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act. in which he mentioned three persons, namely, Sheogobind Prasad Singh, the opposite party Lila Mahton, the petitioner and another person who was a mortgagee, as being interested in the land, the compensation of which he assessed at Rs. 79,909/9/0. In the award Lila Mahton was described as 'shikmidar'.

On 15-12-1954 Lila Mahton filed another petition before the Collector repeating his claim that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent, and he also said that he was a 'shikmidar' of the land. On 23-12-54 the opposite party filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Court, because, in para 5 of this petition he mentioned, he was surprised to find that the name of one Lila Mahto appears as 'shikmidar' in the award as one of the persons interested in the compensation awarded to him, who denied the 'shikmi' right of Lila Mahto, and, therefore, he said that the award was unacceptable, and asked for a reference to the Court.

6. In the present case, the Collector after depositing the compensation money in Court as required by Section 31(2), made a reference under Section 30 of the Act, because he thought that there was a dispute as to apportionment of the compensation and as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof was payable. So far as this particular dispute is concerned, there is no difference, whether the reference is treated as one under Section 18, or under Section 30.

Even if the reference be deemed to have been made under Section 18, as was contended by Mr. Singh, it is obvious that the dispute which was raised by the parties was in regard to 'shikmi' right, which was claimed by Lila Mahto, and, denied by the opposite party and, therefore the collector rightly treated the 'shikmi' claim of Lila Mahto to be the dispute between the parties and referred that matter to the Court.

In the present case, it would appear that in each of the three references, which arose out of one and the same case, the Collector mentioned under column 4 that the nature of the interest claimed by Lila Mahto was that of a 'shikmidar', and in column 6 also it is mentioned that Lila Mahto claimed 'shikmi' interest in the land, and therefore, he was referring this dispute for decision to the Court under Section 30 of the Act.

From these references it is absolutely clear that the dispute which was referred to the Court included the dispute regarding the existence or non-existence of the 'shikmi' right of Lila Mahto in the land. The opposite party's objection was manifestly only to Lila Mahto having 'shikmi' right in the land and entitled to the compensation money as 'shikmidar', and was correctly so described by the Collector in making the reference.

The Court acting under the Act has no jurisdiction to look into proceedings anterior to the reference before the Collector, however erroneously he may have acted in law or in fact, or both, in making the reference. The District Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to go behind the reference, and say that the dispute between the parties was not about 'shikmi' right of Lila Mahto, as mentioned by the Collector in his reference, and, thereby to modify the scope of the reference of the dispute to the Court for its decision by the Collector.