A claim under S. 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which can be properly tried by the Court on a reference made to it by the Collector under the second proviso to S. 49 (1), cannot be mixed up with a claim which can be made in reference proceedings sent to the Court under S. 18 by the Collector.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - This appeal arises out of proceedings under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (NO. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act ). The respondents owned an area of 0.12 acre of land in village Bermo No. 18 in the district of Hazaribagh. This land was required for the construction of Aerial Rope-way for Bokaro Thermal Power Plant, and so, in order to acquire the said land, a declaration under S. 4 of the Act was made on the 9th August, 1952. The property of the respondents which stands on this plot consists of two buildings one is the main structure and the other is made up of out-houses together with an open space of land in front of these structures. The notification showed that the Government thought it necessary to acquire a space of 50 ft. in width for the electric wire to run over and this included a portion of the open space as also the out-houses of the respondents. Under the proceedings taken under the relevant provisions of the Act, the land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation to be paid to the respondents at Rs. 4,451/5/6; according to him, the said amount represented a fair and reasonable compensation for the land together with the out-houses under acquisition.

2. The respondents were not satisfied with this award, and so, they applied for reference under S. 18 of the Act. One of the grounds taken by the respondents in para 1 (d) of their portion for reference was that the other lands and buildings contiguous to the land and building acquired which belonged to them had not been acquired, and in consequence, they had to suffer a huge loss; the rope-line passes close to the rest of the property, and so, it could not be used for fear of its being dangerous for human habitation. On this basis, the respondents alleged that they were entitled to recover as compensation amount Rs. 21,765/8/- which they had spent on the construction of the principal building. Besides, they urged that the monthly rent of Rs. 160/- which they were receiving from the tenants in respect of the said principal building would also be lost and they were entitled to adequate compensation on that account. In other words, one of the grounds raised by the respondents in their petition was referable to S. 23 (3) of the Act.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh then proceeded to make the reference as claimed by the respondents. In his letter of reference, he stated that the respondents were claiming additional compensation on the ground that the other lands and buildings contiguous to the land and building acquired which they owned had not been acquired and thereby they had to suffer a huge loss.

4. On reference, the District Judge of Hazaribagh heard the matter. It appears that before the District Judge, Kundan Singh, respondent No. 1, gave evidence and stated that on the 22nd October, 1952, he had put in an application that the other quarters belonging to him which had not been acquired should also be acquired, because the said quarters were contiguous to the land acquired and had become useless to the respondents.HHhhh The learned District Judge considered the point raised by the respondents and held that since only a narrow strip of land had been left in front of the larger building, it had affected the utility of the said building and the other unacquired land of the respondents, and so, he directed that in addition to the amount of Rs. 4,451/5/6 which had been determined as the amount of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, Rs. 1000/- should be paid to the respondents. In his opinion, the amounts determined by the Acquisition Officer for the property actually acquired was quite appropriate and all that was needed to be done was to award an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that the unacquired property was adversely affected by the acquisition in question.

5. The respondent then preferred an appeal before the High Court of Patna under S. 54 of the Act. In their appeal, the only ground which they urg