JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.:—This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the said Act). The acquisition was pursuant to a proposal made by a Divisional Engineer, Phones (P.), Bombay Telephones by his letter dated 17-5-1974 to acquire various parcels of land for the public purpose of staff quarters of Bombay Telephones i.e. for the Government of India, Post and Telegraph Department.

2.Pursuant thereto, the said parcels of land were notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notice under section 4 dated 21-2-1977 was published on 3-3-1977. The notification under section 6 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner on 24-2-1980 and the same was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Part 1 dated 28-2-1998. One of the parcels of land in C.T.S. No. 404/Survey No. 57/3 is the subject matter of the present reference.

3.Three questions were raised before me by Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, the S.L.A.O. and the acquiring body. They pertained to the title of the claimant to the said land, the valuation of the said land and the area thereof. I will deal with each of these aspects separately.

TITLE

4.On behalf of the S.L.A.O. and the acquiring body, Ms. Geeta Shastri and Mr. Rajguru submitted that the question of the claimant's title ought to be gone into and decided by this Court. They submitted that the claimant had admitted in his cross-examination that he was a tres-passer and that therefore he had no title and was not entitled to receive the amounts in the land acquisition proceedings. Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the claimant on the other hand submitted that the question of consideration of the title does not arise in the present reference. He submitted that it was well established that only those questions which have been referred under section 18 to the Court can be decided in the reference under section 18. He submitted that in a reference under section 18 the Court is entitled to consider only those objections which are referred to the Court and nothing else. The submission is well founded and supported by a judgment of the Privy Council in (Pramatha Nath Mullick Secretary of State for India in Council)1, 1929 Indian Appeals 100 where it was held as under:

"Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter" referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it."

5.The view is also supported by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in (British India Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India)2, I.L.R. 1910 Cal. 230.

It is necessary therefore to examine firstly whether the question of title and apportionment has been referred to this Court.

6.The reference expressly refers to the question of apportionment. Even the application for reference refers to the question of apportionment. However, in order to appreciate Mr. Shah's contention to the contrary, it is necessary to see how the question developed.

7.The award made by the S.L.A.O. is dated 8-7-1986. The S.L.A.O. determined the area of the land to be 101 sq.mtrs. and fixed the compensation/valuation at Rs. 150/- per sq.mtr. It is necessary to extract the following part of the award verbatim :

"S.No. 57/3

C.T.S. No. 404

As per the 7/12 extract on Talathi's record the land under S.No. 57/3 is held by Shri Kashinath Budhaji who is reported to be deceased. In the extract of city survey property card of C.T.S. No. 404, name of Shri Ramjas Ramraj Upadhayay is shown in column of 'Holder' alongwith the name of Shri Kashinath Budhaji. In reply to the notice of Shri Ramjas Ramaraj Upadhayay states in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document