The Court's power to enhance or reduce compensation for different items in a claim for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is limited by the total amount claimed by the claimant under Section 9 of the Act.

1. This judgment will dispose of R. F. A. 82 of 1968 Sangeet Mohinder Singh V/s. The Punjabi University Patiala, and R. F. A. 115 of 1968. State of Punjab V/s. Sangeet Mohinder Singh, as they are cross appeals arising out of the award of the learned Additional 30 1967 Judge, Patiala, dated December

2. The Punjab Government acquired about 316 acres of land situated in villages Sheikhupura, Kamboan, Nasinpur, Karheri and Phaloli, by notification dated March 27, 1963. The land of Sangeet Mohinder Singh (hereinafter called the claimant), measuring 41 bighas 12 biswas formed Part of the acquired land. Not satisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for reference of the dispute with regard to the compensation to the Court of District Judge, Patiala. That reference was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge. Patiala. Both the parties have felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals which are being disposed of together.

3. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab and the Punjabi University has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the claimant. The claimant in his appeal only made the Punjabi University respondent and not the Punjab State. The land was acquired by the State of Punjab and not by the Punjabi University. It has been held by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University V/s. Begari Sayanna, AIR 1974 Andh Pra 299, as under :-

"Part VII of the Act deals with acquisition of land for companies and provides for agreements to be entered into by the company with the Government for the payment of the cost of the acquisition, among other matters. This brief survey of the provisions of the Act shows that the land is acquired by the Government, the land vests in the Government after acquisition, compensation has to be paid to the claimant by the Government and it is to the Government alone that a claimant must look for payment of compensation. If any issue is raised by the claimant the issue has to be settled with the Government only and none else. The lis, if any, is between the Government and the claimant. The person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who may ultimately pay to the Government the cost of acquisition has nothing to do with the lis."

According to this dictum, the Punjab State was a necessary party to the appeal as the claimant could only claim enhanced compensation from the Punjab State and not from the Punjabi University. There is thus merit in the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the Punjab State and the Punjabi University to the effect that the appeal filed by the claimant is not competent.

4. The learned counsel for the claimant, however, submits that the appeal can be considered as cross-objections to R. F. A. 115 of 1968 filed by the State of Punjab and Punjabi University and reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Labhu Ram V/s. Ram Partap, AIR 1944 Lah 76 (FB), wherein the following observations occur :-

"The third question whether the cross-appeal submitted by Labhu Ram and others can be treated as cross-objections is also not free from conflict of authority. Under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, cross-objections are en-tertainable if filed within one month from the date of service on the respondent or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal or within such further time as the appellate Court may see fit to allow. Counsel for the appellants urges that inasmuch as their appeal had been filed after the appeal of Ram Partap and others had been admitted to a hearing and notice to the respondents had been issued, it could be heard as cross-objections to the appeal of Ram Partap and others, even if as appeal it was not competent. Reliance in this connection is placed on