Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rai and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Lila Mahton
Versus
Sheo Govind Singh
Civil Revision No. 889 of 1955 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 13, 1955
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE TO COURT - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - COURT CANNOT GO BEHIND THE REFERENCE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE OBJECTION - DISPUTE REGARDING SHIKMI RIGHT - COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE.
Fact of the Case:
In a land acquisition proceeding, the Collector made a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding a dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party over the shikmi right in the land. The District Judge disallowed the petitioner from adducing evidence to substantiate his claim as shikmidar, holding that he had abandoned his claim in an earlier petition filed before the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to go behind the reference made by the Collector and to modify the scope of the reference. The Court further held that the District Judge erred in disallowing the petitioner from adducing evidence to prove his shikmi right.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court can go behind the reference made by the Collector to determine the nature of the objection? 2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding shikmi right?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the scope of the enquiry before the Court is limited to the consideration of the matter referred by the Collector under Section 18(1) or Section 30, restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. The Court cannot go behind the reference to see whether the Collector acted rightly or wrongly. 2. The Court held that the dispute regarding the shikmi right of the petitioner was referred to the Court by the Collector, and therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the District Judge and directed that the three references be remitted to the Additional District Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This application, on behalf of the petitioner, arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 136 of 1955, pending before Mr. Anant Singh, District Judge at Patna, against his order dated 29-6-55, by which he has disallowed- the petitioner from adducing evidence to substantiate his claim as shikmidar in the land under reference.
2. The facts may be shortly stated thus: Municipal survey plot No. 1403 having an area of 3.674 acres in mauza Kazipur, tauzi No. 138 in the district of Patna,. was the subject-matter of a land acquisition proceeding, which was registered as Land Acquisition case No. 11/8 of 1952-53, before the Collector of Patna, Notices under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act were served, and in pursuance of such a notice the petitioner on 29-10-1954 filed an objection claiming, in the prayer portion, that he should be given compensation for the trees and well standing on the land, but in para 1 of the petition he also mentioned that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent.
On 5-11-1954 the Collector made his award under Sec.11 of the Act. in which he mentioned three persons, namely, Sheogobind Prasad Singh, the opposite party Lila Mahton, the petitioner and another person who was a mortgagee, as being interested in the land, the compensation of which he assessed at Rs. 79,909/9/0. In the award Lila Mahton was described as shikmidar.
On 15-12-1954 Lila Mahton filed another petition before the Collector repeating his claim that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent, and he also said that he was a shikmidar of the land. On 23-12-54 the opposite party filed an application under Sec.18 of the Act for reference to the Court, because, in para 5 of this petition he mentioned, he was surprised to find that the name of one Lila Mahto appears as shikmidar in the award as one of the persons interested in the compensation awarded to him, who denied the shikmi right of Lila Mahto, and, therefore, he said that the award was unacceptable, and asked for a reference to the Court. On 12-1-1955 notice under Sec.12(2) was served on the petitioner. On 15-2-1955 the Collector made a reference purporting to act under Sec.30 to the District Judge. It appears that the first reference was made by the Collector was on 15-4-55 which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 119 of 1955 in which the persons mentioned, as interested in the land, were only the two persons before this Court.
He made a second reference on 29-4-55, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 136 of 1955. in which the persons interested in the land were mentioned to be three persons, two of whom are the parties before this Court. Subsequently, a third reference was made by the Collector on 12-5-55, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 370 of 1955, in which also the persons interested in the land mentioned were the same two persons, who are before us, and who were mentioned in the first reference.
Along with this third reference the petition filed by Lila Mahto on 15-12-54 was sent to the Court of the District Judge. The learned District Judge took UD Land Acquisition Case No. 136 of 1955 on 29-6-55, and on that day the advocate appearing for Lila Mahto, the petitioner, wanted time to adduce evidence in support of his claim as shikmidar.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of Sheogovind Prasad Singh, the opposite party, that Lila Mahton, having not put forth any claim in his objection filed on 29-10-54, in pursuance of the notice under Section 9 of the Act, on the ground of being a shikmidar, to any portion of the land under reference, before the Land Acquisition Officer, he should not be allowed to adduce evidence on this point.
Before the learned District Judge a certified copy of the petition filed by Lila Mahto on 29-10-54 was filed by the opposite party in support of his aforesaid objection. T
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
