The Court's jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is strictly limited by the terms of the sections, and it is confined to considering and pronouncing upon the objection raised in the written application for the reference under Section 18 of the Act.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. These three connected appeals arise out of certain acquisitions of land made for the Andhra University buildings at Waltair in the Vizagapatam District. Appeals 123 and 133 may be dealt with together as they raise the same question. That question is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to decide the amount of compensation due to the melvaramdar and give a decree for anything more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, in- the absence of any reference made to the lower Court by the Land Acquisition Officer at the instance of the melvaramdar. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded in one case about Rs. 64 and in the other case about Rs. 48 to the melvaramdar Perla Annapurnamma Garu, while the appellant before us, who is the Zamindar of Chemudu was awarded in one case Rs. 11,000 and odd and in the other case Rs. 8,800 and odd as the permanent ryot of the land. A sub-lessee appears to have been given nothing as compensation. There was a reference made to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the Zamindar of Chemudu, but there was no reference asked for and no reference made at the instance of the respondent Perla Annapurnamma Garu. Nevertheless the Court below has awarded a much larger amount out of the total amount awarded, namely, 1/6th of the total amount to Perla Annapurnamma as compensation for her rights as melvaramdar. The point appears to us to admit of no doubt. It was decided so long ago as 1907 in Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee I.L.R.(1907) Cal. 451 that (1) a party who raises no objection to the apportionment of the compensation made by the Collector must be taken to have accepted the award in that respect and (2) that under Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Act all that the Court can deal with is the objection which has been referred to it, and it cannot go into a question raised for the first time by a party who had not referred any question or any objection to it under Section 18 of the Act. This decision was followed in a number of other cases and it is enough to refer to Gobinda Kumar Roy Chowdhury v. Debendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury 12 C.W.N. 98 and Gangadara Sastri v. The Deputy Collector of Madras (1912)22MLJ379 . It is perhaps desirable that we should refer to a clear pronouncement by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Pramatha Nath Mallick v. Secretary of State for India in Council. It was held in that case that on a reference made to the Court under Section 18 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to considering and pronouncing upon the objection which had been raised in the written application for the reference. At page 1152 their Lordships make the following observations:

Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collectors award, and it is confined to a 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 or consider anything beyond it.

2. Their Lordships make particular reference to the words found in Section 21 of the Act which restrict the scope of the inquiry before the Court to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. It is therefore clear to our minds that what the lower Court did was something which it had no jurisdiction to do. It purported to decide the question whether the respondent Perla Annapurnamma was entitled to a larger amount as compensation as the melvaramdar than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, in spite of the fact that she had made no objection to the award and had not asked the Land Acquisition Officer to make any reference claiming a larger amount, than what was awarded to her, and in spite of the fact