The jurisdiction of the Civil Court on reference under the Land Acquisition Act is limited to the terms of the reference and does not extend to matters not covered by the reference.

LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. These two appeals by the State of Bihar are directed against the decision of the court below in two cases, referred under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. An area of 25 acres of land, be-ing portion of plot no. 400 of Khata no. 92 in village Behea in Shahabad district (now Bhojpur) was acquired under the provisions of the Act in 1957 and it has been jointly stated before us on behalf of the parties that the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was made on the 13th March, 1957. The entire acquired area belonged to three cosharers, namely, Shri Parsuram Prasad Verma, the original awardee in F. A. 280 of 1967, Shri Bindhyachal Prasad Verma, the awardee in F.A. 281 of 1967, and one Smt. Ambey Devi. Sri Parsuram Prasad Verma and Shri Bindhyachal Prasad Verma moved the Collector for reference under S. 18 of the Act and the court allowed the re-quest. The case in respect of the valua-tion of 6.25 acres of land belonging to Shri Parsuram Prasad Verma registered as Land Acquisition case No. 111 of 1958 and that in regard to 12.50 acres of land belonging to Shri Bindhyachal Prasad Verma as Land Acquisition case No. 112 of 1958. They were consolidated and heard together by the court below and a common judgment was given, F. A. No. 280 of 1967 is directed against the decision in Land Acquisition case No. 111 of 1958 and F. A. No. 281 of 1967 against the decision in Land Acquisition Case No. 112 of 1958. After the death of Shri Parsuram Prasad Verma, his heirs have been substituted as respondents in F. A. 280 of 1967.

3. The Collector fixed the valua-tion of the land at the rate of Rs. 1100.00 per acre. The awardee in F. A. 280 of 1967 claimed the valuation at the rate of Rs. 6600.00 per acre, and the awardee in F. A. 281 of 1967 at the rate of Rs. 6500.00 per acre. As the acquired area was only a portion of the total land belonging to the awardees, a claim was made by way of damages sustained on account of sever-ance injuriously affecting the remaining land. Shri Parsuram Prasad Verma claimed a sum of Rs. 4750.00 and Shri Bindhyachal Prasad claimed a sum of Rs. 7500/-. There was a well and some trees also on the acquired land, but as they are not subject-matter of the present appeals, it is not necessary to state the facts concerning them. The court below on reference raised the rate of valuation of the land to Rs. 5120.00 per acre and granted further amounts calculated at the rate of 5 per cent of the market value of the land on account of damages for injurious affection. The State has challenged the decision of the court below and it has been contended that the award of the collector should be restored.

4. In January, 1969, an application in each of the appeals was filed by Smt. Ambey Devi alias Smt. Ambika Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) praying for her addition as a party respondent. The ap-plications were directed to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeals. The appeals were taken up for hearing on 9-9-1976 and remained part-heard. On the next day, Smt. Ambey Devi filed another application for admitting a copy of her application dated 7-2-1958 filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, a copy of another application dated 22-12-1958 filed before the District Judge, Shahabad and a copy of the award dated 6-1-1958 as additional evidence. Her case is that she had 1/4th share in the total area of 25 acres of acquired land and was thus entitled to 1/4th share in the total compensation payable for the land, the award prepared in these cases was single award, and when the rate of the market value of the land was raised by the court below, she was also proportionately en-titled to the enhanced compensation. It is further asserted on her behalf that she had objected to the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Department and had moved the Collector for reference, but, obviously,