IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the court in a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is confined to answering the reference and cannot be expanded to consider matters outside the scope of Section 18.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had filed the present Regular First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award, dated 19th July, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’), in Reference Petition No. 40 of 2007, titled as Gian Chand versus Collector, HPSEB and another, whereby the Reference Petition was ordered to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Reference Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

3.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has acquired the land of the petitioners, situated in Village Sanahali, for the construction of Uhl Hydel Project Stage-III. The notification, under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21st March, 2005, which was given wide publicity, as per the mandate of the Act. Thereafter, the notification, under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25th August, 2005 and ultimately, vide award No. 308, dated 7th June, 2007, the land in Village Sanahali, Tehsil Lad Bharol, District Mandi, H.P. was acquired. The land of the petitioner was also the subject matter of the said award.

3.2. Dissatisfied from the market value, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, a prayer had been made to the Land Acquisition Collector, to refer the matter to the learned District Judge, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. This reference petition was referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the learned District Judge, for adjudication by referring the objection of the petitioner that the Award is low and inadequate.

3.3. In the petition, under Section 18 of the Act, the inadequacy of the award has been pleaded, on the ground that the inadequate compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, as, according to the petitioner, the market value of the acquired land, at the relevant time, was more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per biswa.

3.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector has ignored the sale deed of the same Mohal. Similarly, the value of the house is also stated to have been assessed on the lower side, as, according to the petitioner, the value of the house was not less than Rs. 15,00,000/-.

3.5. Highlighting the commercial potentiality of the land, it has been pleaded that the acquired land is situated on the State Highway, i.e. Baijnath-Sarkaghat Road. In addition to this, according to the petitioner, there were fruit bearing plants, over the acquired land, for which, no compensation has been assessed.

4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made by the petitioner, to enhance the market value of the acquired land, by answering the reference, in his favour.

4.1. When put to notice, the reference petition has been contested, on the ground, that the petition is not maintainable; the petition is barred by time; and is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. In addition to this, another plea has also been taken that the petitioner has not handed over the possession of the house, as well as, the acquired land, to the respondents, even after receiving the entire value of the properties, which act of the petitioner is stated to be unwarranted, illegal and wrong.

4.2. Rest of the contents of the petition, with regard to the issuance of the notification and acquisition of the land, have not been disputed. According to the respondents, the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the land, after considering all the facts and circumstances.

4.3. Hence, a prayer h