TMI Blog1955 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, in the prayer portion, that he should be given compensation for the trees and well standing on the land, but in para 1 of the petition he also mentioned that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent. 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 ₹ 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that the petitioner has moved this Court in revision. I may mention here that it is not necessary to refer to the orders passed subsequent to this date, because when the petitioner has moved against the first order, other subsequent orders will automatically stand vacated, if we find that this order cannot be sustained. 3. After perusing the application and the order under revision we did not consider it necessary to hear the petitioner, and, therefore, we called upon the opposite party to show cause against the Rule. 4. Mr. Harinandan Singh, appearing for the opposite party in opposing the Rule, contended that the District Judge had taken the correct view in determining the matter in dispute on the basis of the first petition, which was filed by Lila Mahto on 29-10-54, and, therefore, when no such specific mention of the word shikmidar appeared in the first objection of Lila Mahto and no such claim was made before the Collector for compensation on that account for the land the District Judge had correctly disallowed evidence to be adduced on that point. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Singh. 5. In order to decide Mr. Singh's objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ordinary way to determine what their right and title to the property may be. 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 making a reference under Section 30, or under Section 18, the Collector has to state under Section 19(1) for the information of the Court in writing certain matters for which Forms 18 and 19 under Rule 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Mt. Bhagwati v. Mt. Ramkali', AIR 1939 PC 133 (B). 8. The scope of the enquiry before the Court is thus limited to the consideration of only the matter, referred by the Collector under Section 18(1), or Section 30, restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. 9. Mr. Singh's contention is that Sections 20 and 21 make it clear that the Court has to determine the objection , and, therefore, in order to find out what the objection is, the Court can go behind the reference, and take into consideration materials which were placed before the Collector before the award was made by him under Section 11, and on the basis of those materials, in the shape of objection petitions of the parties, or the like, come to his own conclusion about the nature of the objection of the parties, before the Collector, even though the Collector in his reference has mentioned otherwise. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention as a correct interpretation of the scope of the enquiry before the Court. Under the scheme of the Act itself, the Collector is the agent, or mouthpiece of the Government. When he makes the reference to the Court, he ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act, 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. In doing so, the Court will be doing something which it is prohibited from doing by Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. In order to find out what the objection between the parties was, the District Judge had to look to the reference alone, particularly to column 6 of Form 19, in which the Particulars of the dispute were mentioned by the Collector under Section 19 in making the reference under Section 30. The objection mentioned in Sections 20 and 21, means the objection made under Section 18(1) or the dispute which arises under Section 30, and which is referred to the Court for its decision. It is not open to the Court, in such a case, to start an enquiry anew, to find out what the objection before the Collector was initially, to see if the Collector had correctly mentioned the particulars of the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will all be heard together by the District Judge. 13. After the conclusion of the argument for the opposite party, Mr. Mundrika Prasad Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in case this Court took the view that the order under revision should be vacated, and the case remitted to the Court below for disposal, it would be better if the three references which have been directed to be heard together, are sent to one of the Additional District Judges stationed at Patna for disposal, inasmuch as the learned District Judge has expressed his opinion on the merit of the dispute which was referred to him for his decision, and as such he may feel embarrassed by his own previous decision. We have considered this argument, and we think that the ends of justice will be met if these references are heard by one of the Additional District Judges stationed at Patna. The only question is, is an Additional District Judge competent to hear a reference under Section 30, or Section 18, Land Acquisition Act? Under Section 3(d), Land Acquisition Act the Court having jurisdiction under that Act is described as the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction . An Additional Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
