DWARKA PRASAD, J. — The controversy in this appeal is as to whether an Urban Improvement Trust, created under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the 1959 Act), is competent to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, in such matters where the acquisition is made at the behest of the Urban Improvement Trust.

2. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, shortly put, are that land commonly known as Madhusudan Ka Bagh situated in village Bhojpura on Jaipur-Tonk Road, was acquired by the State Government for the planned development of the city of Jaipur, it is not in dispute that the acquisition, proceedings were initiated by the Town Planning Department of the State Government for the purposes of and at the behest of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) The Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur passed an Award on March 25, 1969 for the sum of Rs. 84,430/-for the acquisition of the lard in question. The Chairman of the Trust moved an application before the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of , 1953) for making a reference to the civil court for the determination of proper amount of compensation and of the persons who were legally entitled to such compensation. A reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents before the court that the reference was not maintainable, as the Trust was not entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1953. The Civil Judge by his order dated January 16, 1975 accepted the preliminary objection and held that the Trust was not entitled to demand a reference and rejected the reference on the ground that it was not maintainable. Hence, this appeal was filed in this Court.

3. Section 18 of the Act of 1953 as amended, which is relevant for the purpose of determination of the question which has been raided before us, reads as under :—

"18. Reference to Court:— (1) The State Government department on whose behalf or the company for which acquisition is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof may. by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the amount of costs allowed, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award or the amendment thereof is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made—

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or the amendment thereof, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award or the amendment thereof, and

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section(2) or within six months from the date of the Collectors award or the amendment thereof whichever period shall first expire."

4. According to the provisions of Section 18, the State Government department, on whose behalf or the company for which acquisition has been made, is entitled to require the Collector to make a reference to the court, besides any person interested who has not accepted the award. It was held by the learned Civil Judge that the Trust evidently did not fall in any of the above three categories. It was neither a State Government department nor it was a company nor it could be placed in the category of any person interested in the matter of receiving compensation. Dr.Tiwari, appearing for the Trust argued that the Urban Improvement of Trust fell within the category of State Government department", on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document