Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BHIMASANKARAM,KRISHNA RAO, JJ.
Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, Bhimavaram
Civil Revn. Petns. Nos 238 and 239 of 1952 and Civil Misc. Petns. Nos. 5100, 5101 of 1957 and 1418 of 1952
Decided On : 27-08-1957
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE TO COURT - PERSONS INTERESTED - SCOPE OF INQUIRY - INTERVENTION BY PERSONS NOT PARTIES TO AWARD - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACT V OF 1908), S. 53 - O. 1, R. 10.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were not parties to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed interlocutory applications in a reference made to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking to intervene in the proceedings and claim higher compensation. They argued that they were entitled to do so under the provisions of the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners, not having made an application to the Collector for a reference under S. 18 of the Act, could not be considered as persons who had not accepted the award and were therefore not entitled to intervene in the proceedings. The Court further held that the mere fact that a person is brought before the Court as a non-applicant party does not entitle him to ventilate his own grievances against the award when he himself has not filed an application to the Collector for a reference under S. 18 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether persons who were not parties to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer can intervene in a reference made to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claim higher compensation? 2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain such intervention and grant relief to the interveners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court under Ss. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act is a special one and is strictly limited to the consideration of objections raised by persons who have not accepted the award and have sought a reference to the Court under S. 18. 2. A person who has not filed an application under S. 18 cannot be described as a person who has not accepted the award and is therefore not entitled to intervene in the proceedings before the Court. 3. The mere fact that a person is brought before the Court as a non-applicant party does not entitle him to ventilate his own grievances against the award when he himself has not filed an application to the Collector for a reference under S. 18 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the civil revision petitions filed by the petitioners, holding that they were not entitled to intervene in the proceedings and claim higher compensation.
The legal document clarifies that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act is a specialized and limited one, primarily confined to considering objections raised by individuals who have not accepted the award and have formally sought a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that persons who have not made an application to the Collector for a reference under Section 18 are not entitled to intervene in proceedings or seek higher compensation, even if they are brought before the Court as non-applicant parties (!) . The scope of the Court’s inquiry is restricted to objections submitted by interested persons who have formally requested a reference (!) (!) .
Further, the Court held that merely being a party to the land acquisition award or being interested in the land does not automatically grant the right to intervene or seek additional compensation unless the person has filed an application under Section 18 (!) (!) . Persons who have not received notice or have not sought a reference cannot challenge the award through intervention in the proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court also clarified that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, such as the power to add parties under O. 1 R. 10, do not extend the Court’s jurisdiction to grant reliefs beyond those expressly provided for in the Land Acquisition Act (!) (!) .
In conclusion, only those persons who have formally filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and have not accepted the award are entitled to have their objections considered by the Court. Persons who have not made such applications or who were not parties to the award do not have the legal standing to intervene or claim higher compensation in these proceedings (!) (!) . The Court dismissed the civil revision petitions and related miscellaneous petitions, reaffirming the limited scope of its jurisdiction in land acquisition cases.
BHIMASANKARAM, J. :-
These civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings for the acquisition of some plots of land for the use of a college in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. We disposed of on the 21st of February, 1957 certain appeals arising out of a reference made to the Sub-Court, Narasepur by the Land Acquisition Officer concerned with that acquisition. In the same judgment whereby he disposed of the reference, the learned Subordinate Judge also dealt with four interlocutory applications, one of them unnumbered, presented by certain persons who had not sought a reference from the Collector to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The two civil revision petitions now before us are directed against the orders of the lower court on two of these interlocutory applications. C. R. P. No. 238 of 1952 is against the order in I. A. No. 896 of 1950 and C. R. P. No. 239 of 1952 is against the order in I. A. No. 1074 of 1950. Both these interlocutory applications purported to be made in O. P. No. 4 of 1950 which was how the reference above mentioned was registered and numbered.
In C. R. P. No. 238 of 1952 the petitioner has also filed an application for the admission of some documents as additional evidence C. M. P. No. 5100 of 1957. This and the connected petition (to dispense with the printing of documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence) will be dealt with towards the end of this judgment.
2. I. A. No. 896 of 1950 was filed by one Mohammad Ibrahim Sahib who claims a 2/9ths share in certain of the plots acquired. He is the brother of Mohammad Osman Saheb the claimant in I. A. No. 888 of 1950. I A No. 888 of 1950 was one of the several petitions filed by the claimants for enhanced compensation.
Osman Sahebs claim also was referred to the court. The 1st petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 238 of 1952 before us however did not seek and obtain a reference to the court of his claim for higher compensation. When the reference was pending before the Sub-Court, Narasapur, he filed I. A. No. 896 of 1950 and his prayer in that petition was in these terms:
"................... that the matter may be enquired into as (if) this petitioner had filed objections or the matter may be sent back to the Land Acquisition Officer for fresh disposal if necessary".
3. These alternative prayers were based upon the following allegations : He did not receive a notice either under S. 9 or S. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act and became aware for the first time of the acquisition proceedings only "after the receipt of a notice from this Honble Court to take the money lying in deposit after producing the necessary record of title."
According to him as the matter was pending before the Court by the application put in by his brother, a co-owner with the petitioner and as he was a person interested in the objections filed by his brother, the Court was competent under the circumstances to grant either of the prayers. The other petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition who were four in number are the sisters of the petitioner and his brother Osman Saheb and each lays claim to a ninth share in the same items.
In the lower court they were the petitioners in the unnumbered interlocutory application and they have now joined their brother Ibrahim Saheb in the above Civil Revision Petition. In the unnumbered petition they prayed for a relief similar to that asked for by their brother Ibrahim Saheb in I. A. No. 896 of 1950. As they were not parties to the award, objection was taken by the office in the lower Court to registering their application as an interlocutory application in the original petition and it was returned.
But they represented the application with a prayer that it may be heard along with the connected petitions. Now in this court they have filed C. M. P. 1418/52 to add them as petitioners in C. R. P. No. 238 of 1952.
4The facts leading up to Civil Revision Petition No. 239 of 1952 may also be briefly stated. It is direc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
