Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. N. SAIKIA, J.
A.S.Khongphai -Appellant
Versus
Special Judicial Officer, Shillong and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 25 of 1977
Decided On : 20-02-1980
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - REFERENCE COURT JURISDICTION - TITLE AND INTEREST DISPUTE - SECTION 33 - INVESTMENT OF COMPENSATION MONEY - INTEREST PAYMENT - CIVIL SUIT PENDING - COURT'S JURISDICTION - WRIT JURISDICTION - INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
A reference court under the Land Acquisition Act was faced with two questions: (1) Whether it had jurisdiction to decide the question of title and interest of the parties when a post-award civil suit on the same subject-matter was pending in a civil Court? (2) Whether an application under Arts.226/227 was maintainable?
Finding of the Court:
1. The reference Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred to it in terms of the provisions of the Act; and it may amount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction if he refers the parties to a civil court and wait to take a decision until the dispute is decided by the Civil Court. 2. The court must decide the matter which is before it. Whenever a question of title arises between rival claimants, it must under the norms of the Act be decided in that case and cannot be made the subject-matter of a separate suit. 3. The impugned order indicates non-exercise of jurisdiction by the reference court on an erroneous assumption that it is to wait until the title suit is finally decided having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute itself. It has also not exercised its jurisdiction in conformity with the provisions of S.33.
Issues: 1. Whether a reference Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title and interest of the parties when a post-award civil suit on the same subject-matter is pending in a civil Court? 2. Whether an application under Arts.226/227 is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction under the Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of the sections. In a reference under S.18 the jurisdiction arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collectors award and it is confined to 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 and consider anything beyond it. 2. Similarly, when the objection taken is to the question of entitlement that alone is the matter referred and the Court has no power to determine and consider anything beyond it. 3. The court has an inherent power to postpone the hearing of a suit pending the decision of a selected action (Probate proceeding) and to make an order for stay of cross-suits on the ground of convenience. The inherent power is not to be arbitrarily or capriciously exercised, but for facilitating real and substantial justice. 4. A reference court under Section 18 is a court of special and exclusive jurisdiction, and a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction trying an earlier title suit has no jurisdiction to stay a subsequently instituted reference. When both parties sought the Tribunal as the forum for the determination of the question, the civil court ceased to have any jurisdiction in the matter.
Final Decision: The impugned order is quashed. The Rule is made absolute. The petitioners application under S.33 of the Land Acquisition Act is remanded to the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong to be disposed of according to law, taking into consideration the discussions hereinabove.
ORDER:- This is an application under Arts.226/227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 23-12-1976 passed in L.A. (Misc.) Case No. 16 of 1976 rejecting the petitioners application under S.33 of the Land Acquisition Act and directing the awarded amount to be deposited in the State Bank of India, Shillong branch in the name of the Collector under Fixed Deposit Scheme and holding that the Court had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to decide the right, title and interest of the parties under the proceedings. It involves two questions, namely (1) Whether a reference Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title and interest of the parties when a post award civil suit on the same subject-matter is pending in a civil Court? (2) Whether an application under Arts.226/227 is maintainable?
2. A plot of land measuring 93 acres, more or less, situate at Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and an award was given by the Collector on 8-2-1974. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were shown as persons interested in the land, but the entire balance amount of Rs. 23,71,097.60 P. was shown as payable to the petitioner Sri A.S. Khongphai, and nothing payable to respondent No. 4. The petitioner earlier handed over possession of the land to the Defence Department and received an interim payment of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Collector on 14-2-1970 pending finalisation of the award. The respondent No. 4 claiming compensation filed a petition dated 10-6-1971 before the Collector who by his letter dated 20-8-1971 directed her to establish her alleged right over the acquired land in a Court of Competent jurisdiction. She filed Title Suit No. 34(T) of 1971 for declaration of her right and title over the land in question and for injunction restraining the Collector from making payment of any compensation money under any award to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed on 15-9-1972 on the ground that the suit having been between Tribals the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. An appeal therefrom also failed. Meanwhile the award was given on 8-2-74. A revision application in the Honble High Court was also dismissed on 27-6-75, resulting in vacation of the injunction order granted on 13-9-73. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed Title Suit No. 18(T) of 1975 impleading the petitioner as the principal defendant and the other defendants of the earlier suit were pro forma defendants and impleading four others, said to be the heirs of the one late R.E. Haffield. An ad interim injunction granted on 4-7-75 was made absolute on 29-9-75. On appeal by the petitioner injunction was vacated on 23-2-1976. Meanwhile the award being given, the petitioner filed an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act objecting to the quantum of compensation and upon this reference L.A. (Misc.) Case No. 16 of 1976 was registered. Respondent No. 4 also filed a similar application objecting to entitlement, for determination of the person to whom the compensation was payable, and thereupon another reference case-Misc. No. 15 of 1976 was registered. Both the cases are now pending in the court of the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong.
3. After vacation of the injunction (on 23-2-76) the petitioner submitted an application before the Collector on 1-3-1976 praying for payment of the compensation money to him; but the same was rejected on the ground that the payment could not be made at that stage, as the matter was pending in the Reference Court of the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong. The petitioner then filed another application dated 10-6-76 before the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong praying for release of the compensation money in his favour as he was entitled to receive it. The officer by his order dated 11-9-76, passed in L.A. (Misc.) Case No. 16 of 1976, rejected the application on the ground that there was pending dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 with regard to the right,
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
