Rachhpal Singh, C.J. - The learned District Judge of Jammu has submitted five cases to this Court for orders. In order to understand the question involved in these cases it is necessary to give a brief history of the cases. It appears that the Government started proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of acquiring certain lands and buildings belonging to Jawahar Singh, Sain Ladha, Guranditta, Romal Singh and Bhagat Ram, situate in Satwari. In accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Regulation X of 1990) usual notices of the intention of the Government to acquire these lands were issued to the interested persons and then an enquiry was made by the Collector who made his awards. After this the aboved named five persons filed applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and prayed to the Collector that the matter be referred for determination to court as they were not satisfied with the amount awarded to them. Thereupon the Collector referred all the cases to the District Judge of Jammu who, according to the Collectors opinion, was the court to whom the references should have been made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Regulation. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 27th Maghar 1997 has referred all the five cases to this court. It may be stated that the valuation of three of the five cases is over ten thousand rupees whereas the valuation of the remaining two cases is below ten thousand rupees. The learned District Judge in the concluding portion of his order states:-

"The cases are now submitted for orders of the Honble High Court. In my opinion all the five references should be dealt with by one court to ensure uniformity of treatment."

The first question which requires consideration in connection with these cases is whether the reference made by the District Judge is competent. Under the Code of Civil Procedure lower courts have power to make a reference to the High Court. Section 113 enacts as follows:

"Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed any court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

This section has to be read with Rule 1 of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Code which enacts as follows. -

"Where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises, on which the court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree, entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer such statement with its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court".

There is no other section under which the lower courts have any power to make any kind of reference. The High Court has certain powers under section 115 to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto but that section has nothing to do with the present case for the simple reason that at present the cases have not been decided by the District Judge, and they are not cases in which no appeal would lie to the High Court When the provisions of section 113 and Rule 1 of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Code are taken into consideration it at once becomes manifest that the reference made by the learned District Judge is wholly incompetent and he had no power to make such a reference. In view of the clear provisions of Rule 1 Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Code it must be held that a reference can only be made in those cases in which the decree which may be passed is not subject to an appeal and where the court making the reference entertains any doubt about any point involved in the case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document