1960 Present : Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.

PERERA, Appellant, and DINGIRI MENIKA and others,
Respondents

S. C. 75/59-D. C. Kandy, 5087/L

Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950-Reference to Court under Section 10 (7) (b)- Incapacity of Court to decide matters other than those referred to it-Sections 7, 9, 11, 12-Civil Procedure Code, s. 18.

Where the acquiring officer at the conclusion of an inquiry held under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950, refers the claim or dispute for the determination of a Court, the Court has no power to determine claims or disputes not referred to it for its decision. The Court is not entitled to employ the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code to add parties who make claims not made before the acquiring officer or raise disputes not referred to it by him.

APPEAL from an order of the District Court, Kandy.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with Vernon Jonklaas, S. Sharvananda and L. C. Senevifatne, for 1st Defendant-Appellant.

No appearance for Plain tiff-Respondent.

September 1, 1960. BASNAYAKE, C.J.-

This is and appeal by the 1st defendant in a reference to the District Court made on 27th March 1957 under section 10 (1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act No. 9 of 1950. That provision empowers the acquiring officer at the conclusion of an inquiry held under section 9 to refer the claim or dispute for the determination of a competent Court having jurisdiction over the place where the land which is to be acquired is situated. In his reference, which is in the form of a plaint, the acquiring officer stated-

" 2. That at the said inquiry dispute arose between the said defendants as regards their right, title or interest aforesaid, and it has become necessary under Sec. 10 (1) (b) of the said Act to refer such dispute to this Court for determination.

"3. That the plaintiff does hereby refer the said dispute to this Court for determination and states for the information of Court the particulars of the said dispute which are as follows :-

(1) The 1st defendant claims the entirety of the land.

(2) The 2nd defendant claims Rajakariya Rights in respect of about 7 1/2 acres of the land and claims compensation in a sum which
if invested @ 3% should bring an annual income sufficient to perform the Rajakariya claimed.

(3) The 3rd defendant claims Rajakariya Rights in respect of an extent of 3 roods 8 perches and claims l/3rd of the value thereof as compensation. In addition he claims sole owner ship of about 1 1/2 acres.

(4) The 4th, 5th & 6th defendants claim 2 acres of land jointly on Deed No. 3459 dated 18/5/1878 attested by R. D. Bastian, N.P.

(5) The 7th defendant claims 5 lahas of land on Deed No. 11830 dated 17th February 1890 attested by J. A. Siriwardena, N.P."

The 1st defendant in his answer disputed the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants referred to in the reference. The 3rd defendant, the trustee of the Dalada Maligawa, filed an answer claiming Rs. 15,000/- out of the compensation as being the value of the loss of Rajakariya Services to the Maligawa. The 4th, 6th and 7th defendants filed a joint answer in which they prayed-

(a) that the 4th defendant be declared entitled to 1/18th share of the compensation awarded;

(b) that the 6th and 7th defendants be each declared entitled to l/12th share of the compensation in respect of the land described in schedule " A " of the answer and l/4th share each of the compensation in respect of land described in schedule " B " thereof.

The 5th defendant died after the reference without filing an answer and on the application of the Government Agent his heirs were added as defendants.

At the hearing on 19th March 1958, the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defendants appeared and abandoned their contests and admitted the title of the 1st defendant. The 2nd, 3rd and 5tb defendants did not appear at the hearing. The Judge ordered decre