1. Land acquisition compensation dispute — Reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1227
Supreme Court Of India
A.PASAYAT,S.H.KAPADIA
P. K. Sreekantan - Appellant
Versus
P.Sree-kumaran Nair - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2896 of 2003)
Decided On : 12/04/2006
Advocates Appeared:
S. V. Rajan and K. Rajeev, Advocates, for Appellants; T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Subramonium Prasad, Gopala Krishnan, Karun Mehta and G. Prakash, Advocates with him, for Respondents.
S. V. Rajan and K. Rajeev, Advocates, for Appellants; T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Subramonium Prasad, Gopala Krishnan, Karun Mehta and G. Prakash, Advocates with him, for Respondents.
A Reference Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to the terms of the reference. It cannot adjudicate apportionment disputes under Section 30 if the reference under Section 18 is limited to compensation enhancement, as a lack of inherent jurisdiction cannot be cured by waiver or acquiescence.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30 - Jurisdiction of Reference Court - Reference court derives jurisdiction from the reference made by the Collector - References under Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different and yield different decrees (Para 12) - When a reference is made specifically for the enhancement of compensation, the Court has no jurisdiction to determine or consider any matter beyond that specific objection (Para 12) - Wherever jurisdiction is given by a statute upon certain specified terms, those terms must be complied with for the jurisdiction to arise; otherwise, the jurisdiction does not arise (Para 14).
(B) Legal Principle - Waiver of Jurisdiction - When there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction, the defect cannot be waived nor can it be cured by acquiescence (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired for the establishment of a market. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, several claimants filed applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act, specifically challenging the compensation as being too low compared to the market value. The Reference Court issued notices and subsequently adjudicated on disputes regarding the extent of land acquired from each claimant and the apportionment of the compensation. The High Court set aside the portion of the judgment determining questions not referred to the court, holding that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding the extent of land when the reference was only for enhancement of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Reference Court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and is bound to determine whether the matter falls within its special jurisdiction. Since the only objection raised in the reference application was regarding the amount of compensation, the court had no jurisdiction to decide on the apportionment of land or compensation, which are matters governed by Section 30 of the Act.
Issues: Whether a Reference Court, acting on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement of compensation, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the extent of land acquired or the apportionment of compensation among claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the court in land acquisition references is special and strictly limited to the terms of the reference made by the Collector. Since Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually distinct, a reference for enhancement of value under Section 18 does not invest the court with jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes under Section 30. A lack of inherent jurisdiction is a fundamental legal flaw that cannot be waived by the parties.
Result: Appeal is dismissed except to the extent indicated [permitting the appellants to make an application for reference in terms of Section 30 of the Act].
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land acquisition and compensation
- statutory interpretation
-
reference to court
- section 18 reference (Para 3)
- section 30 reference
- jurisdiction of reference court
-
practice and procedure
- inherent lack of jurisdiction
- waiver and acquiescence
Table of Contents
Judgement
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :- Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and the State.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
An extent of 2.81.20 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.1780/1, 1780/4, 1780/9, 1781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the Kadakampally Village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of E.E.C. market at Anayara. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was published on 29.5.1992. The possession of the land was taken on 23.7.1992 and an award was passed on 13.7.1992 fixing a total compensation of Rs.45,08,111/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applications were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter for adjudication to the Reference Court.
4-5. The District Collector by his letter dated 18.7.1994 forwarded the relevant records in respect of the matter for determination under Section 18 of the Act. Along with the said letter, the names and addresses of the interested parties, who had filed the reference applications, were also furnished in the separate sheet attached. As per the sheet attached with the said covering letter, the appellant No.1-P.K. Sreekantan submitted his application dated 4.8.1993. Respondent No.1 P. Sreekumaran Nair submitted his application dated 26.8.1993 and the claimants 3, 4 and 5 submitted their applications on 4.8.1993. The reference application dated 4.8.1993 was given by the appellant No.1 pursuant to the receipt of the award notice dated 13.7.1993 whereby the claimant was informed of the compensation awarded for the property acquired from him. In the said reference application it was stated that an extent of 86 Ares and 41 Sq. metres of property out of the total extent of 2 acres and 41½ cents of property comprised in Survey No.1889 of Kadakampally Village was obtained by him by virtue of the partition deed dated 21.2.1975. It was specifically pleaded that the property is situated in an important locality within city limits having road frontage and easy access, it is a building site and a garden land and it shall fetch a minimum market value of Rs.5,000/- per cent. It was further stated that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and meagre considering the importance of the locality. The award amount was claimed to have been received under protest and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to refer the matter to the Reference Court for adjudicating the land value. Similar claims were made by the other applicants as well. From the reference application so submitted it could be seen that the dispute was only regarding the amount of compensation awarded to the respective land acquired from each one of the applicants, as according to them, amount awarded is low compared to the market value.
6. Pursuant to the reference so made by the District Collector, the Reference Court issued notice to the parties whereupon the parties filed their respective statements.
7. Various questions were raised in the appeals which were filed before the High Court. In the appeal filed by the present respondents 1 and 2 it was contended that the Court below has no jurisdiction to go beyond the issues of reference. It had exceeded its jurisdiction in going beyond the issues raised in the reference applications and adjudicating disputes not raised by the parties in the reference applications. The appeal by the present appellant related to the appropriation of the compensation awarded. States appeal essentially was against the valuation. As noted above, the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed with the following observation:-
"In the light of the principles as laid down in the above decisions and in the absence of any reference made on the question regarding the extent of the land a
