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.