Judgement

Appeal (No. 98 of 1928) from a decree of the High Court (August 3, 1926) varying a decree of the Land Acquisition Judge of 24 Parganas.

An award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, having been made in respect of land of which the appellant was owner, he applied for and obtained a reference to the Court under s. 18, sub-s.1, of the Act. The only question arising upon the appeal was whether upon that reference the appellant could object to the measurement of the land stated in the award. The appellant by his written application prayed for a reference "for determination of proper com pensation and valuation for the lands acquired."

The High Court, affirming on this point the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge, held that the inquiry was confined to the particular objection raised by the appellant upon his application for the reference.

B. B. Ghose J. (with whose judgment Cammiade J. agreed), after referring to cases in other High Courts in which a different view had been taken, said that the Court was bound by its own decisions in Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukherji (( 1907) I. L. R. 34 C. 451.) and British

Law. Rep. 57 Ind. App. 100 ( 1929- 1930)

Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Secretary of State 249

India Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (( 1910) I. L. R. 38 C. 230.), as well as three cases reported at 12 C. W. N. 98, 985, 987. Further the question had been decided against the applicant by another Division Bench in the present proceedings.

1929. Oct. 17. Sir Gerald Hurst K.C. and Dube for the appellant The terms of the appellants application for the reference were sufficiently wide to cover an objection to the measurement of the land. But in any case, upon the true construction of ss. 18 to 24, the inquiry upon the reference was not confined to the specific objection raised. By s.18, sub-s.1, it is "the matter" which is referred, and that means the award as a whole. That contention is directly supported by In re Rustomji Jijibhai (( 1905) I. L. R. 30 B. 341.), also by Gangadari Sastri v. Deputy Collector of Madras.(( 1912) 22 Mad. L. J. 379.)

[Sir George Lowndes referred to In re Land Acquisition Act.(( 1905) I. L. R. 30 B. 275, 287.)]

The observations in that case were obiter. The Calcutta decisions relied on in the High Court are distinguishable. They were cases of attempts by persons who had no locus standi in the reference to enlarge its scope, not cases in which the applicant merely wished to go beyond the objection raised in his application. The Collector in making an award under the Act merely determines the sum which the Government should offer; he does not act judicially Ezra v. Secretary of State for India.(( 1905) L. R. 32 I. A. 93.) It may therefore be presumed that the intention was that upon objection the whole award should be open to review by the Court.

Dunne K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent were not called upon.

Dec. 6. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR GEORGE LOWNDES. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (I. of 1894). Certain lands of the appellant were required by Government for a public purpose. The usual formalities were gone through and awards were made by the Collector in eleven cases in which the appellant was concerned. At his request references were made to the Land Acquisition Judge, 24 parganas, who slightly increased the Collectors awards. The appellant carried the matter to the High Court, where a further and more substantial increase was allowed, and he has now appealed to His Majesty in Council. The appellants grounds of appeal to the High Court and his objections to the High Courts decree were voluminous, but only one question has been submitted on his behalf to the judgment of this Board.

It is contended that the measurements of four of the most valuable plots taken up, the compensation for which was fixed at Rs.1000 per cottah, are incorrect, and that the appellant has been denied by the Courts in India the o