ORDER

(i) It is then submitted that in the reference application dated 22.09.2003 damage to the fencing and iron gate was not pleaded in the reference application and the plea was only on non-assessment of standing crops, trees and cultivation pleaded.

(ii) The Reference order dated 31.10.2003 (pg. 108 / Paper book I) he points out, only pertained to i) determination of measurement ii) classification iii) rate of the land (iii) It is the Appellant’s case he contends, that the learned court’s jurisdiction under Section 18 is determined on the basis of the terms of the reference order issued under Section 19 of the Act and the court cannot assume jurisdiction over an issue which is not referred to it. In the case of Prayag Upnivesh v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran reported in (2003) 5 SCC 561 (para 7, 9, 10, 11) he submits, it has been held that a Reference Court can only derive jurisdiction over matter or objection referred to it and nothing further and its jurisdiction is derived from the reference and therefore it cannot go outside the scope of the said reference else it would suffer from a lack of inherent jurisdiction.

(iv) Similarly, he submits, any claim for compensation for loss