Ram
Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1991] INSC 59 (21 February 1991)
Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 649 1991 SCC (2) 247 JT 1991 (1) 582 1991 SCALE (1)349
ACT:
Land
Acquisition Act. 1894: Section 18 and 19. Land
Acquisition-Compensation-Claimants application for reference under section 18
for claim of enhanced compensation in respect of the whole land acquired-But
Land Schedule annexed with application indicating Khasra No. in respect of part
of the lands-Collector making a statement under section 19 to the Reference
Court restricted to lands specified by Khasra No. and not in respect of the
whole land acquired-Held State acquiring land cannot take advantage of party's
ignorance and consequent non-specification of Khasra No.-It is the duty of
Collector to send full information to the Reference Court regarding the entire
land acquired.
HEAD NOTE:
The
lands belonging to the appellants were acquired and they were awarded
compensation for their lands. Being dissatisfied with the compensation they
made an application for a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made a reference to the Additional
District Judge and in its statement under Section 19 the Collector included
only those lands which were included by the appellants in their application for
reference under section 18. The appellants filed an application before the
Additional District Judge under section 151-153 of the Code of Civil Procedure
for a direction to the Collector to file a revised statement giving the details
of the whole of their lands acquired for the purposes of claim of enhanced
compensation. The Additional District Judge directed the Collector to furnish a
correct statement under section 19. Against the order of the Additional
District Judge the Union of India filed a revision petition before the High
Court, which allowed the petition by holding that the power of the Collector to
make a reference was restricted to what was stated by the appellants in their
application for reference and only those Khasra Nos. which were specifically
mentioned in the Schedule annexed with the application under section 18 could
be considered for the purposes of enhancement of the claim of compensation and
not the entire land acquired. Hence this appeal against the order of the High
Court.
650
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court,
HELD:
1. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the only requirement for
the person interested who has not accepted the award is to move a written
application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for the
determination of the Court. One of the grounds for not accepting the award is
the amount of compensation. Once such application is moved it is the duty of
the Collector to make a reference to the Court. Under section 19 of the Act
while making the reference the Collector is required to state for the
information of the Court the particulars as mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. Thus it is the duty of the Collector
to mention not only the situation and extent of land but even particulars of
any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose land is
acquired may not be fully conversant with the Khasra No. or area as entered in
the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State acquiring such land
cannot be allowed to take any advantage of such ignorance of the
agriculturists. Once an application is moved for making a reference under
section 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the Collector to send full
information to the Court regarding the entire land acquired and it is
thereafter the duty of the Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.
[657B-E]
2.
From a perusal of the application filed under Section 18 of the Act along with
the Schedule annexed therewith it is clear that the appellants were claiming an
enhancement in the compensation in respect of the entire land acquired and
there was no question of asking for a reference for a limited portion of land.
The appellants were not required to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a prayer
for enhancement of compensation while moving an application to the Collector
for making a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act. The High Court
unnecessarily went into the question of some statement made by the learned
counsel for the appellants before the Additional District Judge and examining
its validity under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus committed an
error in deciding the matter with a wrong approach and in a technical manner.
[655E, F-G, 657F] Smt Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, A.I.R. 1975 S.C.
2202; cited. 651
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1978.
From the
Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1976 of the Delhi High Court in C.R. No. 354 of
1975.
Dr.
Y.S. Chitale, K.B. Rohatagi, S.K. Dhingra and Shashank Shekhar for the
Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan,
R.B. Mishra, C.V.S. Rao and S.N. Terdal for the Respondents.
The Judgment
of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 10.8.1976 in Civil
Revision No. 354 of 1975. Agricultural land measuring 78 bighas and 14 biswas
belonging to the appellants situated in village Garhi Peeran was acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Land
Acquisition Collector passed an award on 10.10.1967 allowing compensation for
land in block 'A' @ Rs. 2300 per bigha and in block 'B' @ Rs. 1200 per bigha.
The claimants/appellants submitted an application under Sec. 18 of the Act for
making a reference to the Court. The Collector made a reference to the Court in
pursuance to the said application submitted by the appellants. The Additional
District Judge by Judgment dated 15.1.1971 increased the amount of compensation
to Rs.4,000 per bigha for land in block 'A' and Rs.2,500 per bigha for land in
block 'B'. The appellants filed an application on 16.1.1971 under Sections 151-153
C.P.C. before the Additional District Judge praying that the land in Khasra
Nos. 408, 411, 763, 764, 891, 893, 410, 432, 433, 504, 506, 761, 900, 901,
& 904 had not been shown by the Land Acquisition Collector in the statement
under Section 19 of the Act although he had sent he names of all the Bhoomidars
of the aforesaid land. The mistake was on the part of the Land Acquisition
Collector and the appellants should not suffer on account of the mistake or
oversight of the Collector. It was thus prayed that in the interest of justice
the Collector may be directed to file a revised statement under Sec. 19 of the
Act giving the details of the whole of the land belonging to the claimants which
had been left out on account of accidental slip or omission. The application
was opposed on behalf of the Union of India. The Additional District Judge
after hearing the parties at length, by order dated 18.2.1975 allowed the 652
application and directed the Land Acquisition Collector concerned to furnish
the correct statement under Sec. 19 of the Act regarding the land acquired of
the appellants.
Aggrieved
against the aforesaid order of the Additional District Judge, Union of India
filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated
10.8.1976 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional
District Judge dated 18.2.1975. The appellants have now, come in appeal against
the order of the High Court.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There
is no manner of dispute that the land acquired was 78 bighas and 14 biswas and
the appellants were entitled to the compensation of the entire land. The Land
Acquisition Collector gave an award and the appellants being not satisfied with
the amount of compensation submitted an application for making a reference to
the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. A perusal of the application submitted by
the appellants under Sec. 18 of the Act shows that in para (1) it was stated as
under:
"That
the claimants' land details of which are given in the schedule has been
acquired under the aforesaid Award. The Collector has awarded a very low rate
of compensation to which claimants are not satisfied as their claims have not
been adequately considered by the Collector." Thereafter grounds of
reference were stated and ground (9) which is relevant for our purpose is
reproduced as under:
"9.
That the claimant petitioners claim compensation for the whole of their land at
the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha, Rs.10,000 for the well and Rs.200 each for
each tree. They further claim Rs.60,000 each for their resettlement as their
entire land in the village has been taken away under the acquisition and they
have been uprooted. They also claim 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation plus the solatium with effect
from 4.3.1963." A schedule of land belonging to claimant-petitioners was
also annexed with the application which is as under:
653 Kh.
Nos. Area 898 4-16 899 0-11 417 1-03 431 2-09 407 0-05 405 1-11 507 5-06 514
4-16 515 4-16 520 2-04 406 2-17 416 3-08 etc. etc The High Court took the view
that only those Khasra Nos. which were specifically mentioned in the schedule
could alone be considered for the purpose of enhancement of the claim of compensation
and not the entire land acquired. The area of the above Khasra Nos. amounted to
34 bighas 2 biswas only though the total area of acquired land amounted to 78 bighas
and 14 biswas. The High Court in this regard took the view that the reference was
made by the Collector by sending a statement of the Court of the Additional
District Judge under Sec. 19 of the Act. In this statement only those fields
were included which had been listed in the schedule attached to the application
under Sec. 18. The High Court further held that the power of the Collector to
make the reference was restricted to what was stated in the claimants'
application for reference under Sec. 18 and does not extend beyond it. If the claimant,
does not include some fields in his reference application, the Collector cannot
include it in the statement under Sec. 19. The High Court further held as
under:
"In
the original reference petition under section 18 by claimants the adjective
"whole" was used in relation to the 654 land of the claimants and the
words "etc. etc." were also used in the schedule. At the same time,
certain fields of the claimants which were the subject-matter of the
Collector's award were not included in the reference petition. There was
certainly an ambiguity as to the intention of the claimants as expressed by the
reference petition.
The
counsel for the Union of India was, therefore, justified in requesting the
Additional District Judge to call upon the claimants either to admit the
statement sent by the Collector under Section 19 or to file an amended
reference petition stating their shares individually. The Additional District
Judge was also justified in asking the counsel for the claimants to examine the
preliminary objections and to make a statement. The power of the Court to call
upon the counsel for the claimants to make a statement was derived from Order
X, Civil Procedure Code. Under Rule 2 of Order X, the Court had power to
examine a party or his pleader and to record his answer in relation to any
material question relating to the reference before it. Under Order XIV rule 3,
the materials on which issues had to be framed by the Court included such
statements made by the pleaders of the parties under Order X.
Accordingly,
we find that the learned Additional District Judge used the statement made by
the counsel for the claimants as the basis for dismissing the preliminary
objections advanced by the Union of India. The Counsel for the claimants had
authority to make the statement which he did.
The
Supreme Court has recently pointed out in Smt. Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand,
AIR 1975 S.C. 2202, that the implied authority of the counsel extends not only
to make such a statement but even to compromise a suit or to admit a claim. Had
the counsel for the claimants not made the statement there that the Collector's
statement under Section 19 is correct, the Additional District Judge would have
been found to call upon the claimants to clarify the schedule to the reference
petition so that the Court could know precisely the fields in respect of which
enhancement of compensation was claimed. It is because the claimants' counsel
asked the Court to take the Collector's statement under Section 19 as correct
that the Court decided to investigate only the correctness of the compensation
regarding those fields." The High Court ultimately took the view that the
only conclusion 655 possible was that the enhancement was restricted to the
land in dispute and the land in dispute could only be such land in respect of
which reference was demanded by the claimants.
In our
view the High Court was totally wrong and unnecessarily complicated the matter
which seems to us, quite simple. It is an admitted position that 78 bighas and
14 biswas of land belonging to the appellants was acquired and the Land
Acquisition Collector had given an award @ Rs.2,300 per bigha for block 'A' and
Rs.1,200 per bigha for block 'B'. The appellants were not satisfied with the
above rate of compensation and they had moved an application for making a
reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. In the application it was clearly mentioned
that the Collector had awarded a very low rate of compensation to which the
claimants were not satisfied. In ground No. 9 the claimants/petitioners had
mentioned that they were claiming compensation for the whole of their land @
Rs.20,000 per bigha. That apart in the schedule also some khasra Nos. were
mentioned specifically but in the end the words used were 'etc. etc'. The
Additional District Judge had passed the order on 15.1.1971 and immediately on
the next day i.e. 16.1.1971 the appellants had submitted the application under Secs.
151-153 C.P.C. for correcting the mistake. The Additional District Judge who
was seized of the matter allowed the said application by his order dated 18.2.1975.
Thus
from a perusal of the application filed under Sec. 18 of the Act alongwith the
schedule we are fully satisfied that the appellants were claiming an
enhancement in the compensation in respect of the entire land acquired and
there was no question of asking for a reference for a limited portion of land
measuring 34 bighas and 2 bigwas only. The High Court unnecessarily went into
the question of some statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants
before the Additional District Judge and in examining its validity under Order
X of the C.P.C. It was a simple matter to be decided on the basis of factual
statements made in the application and we are fully convinced that the
appellants had sought a reference for the entire land acquired and there was no
reason whatsoever in leaving out some portion of the land when the grievance of
the appellants was for enhancing the compensation which was awarded at a low
rate. The appellants were not required to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a
prayer for enhancement of compensation while moving an application to the
Collector for making a reference to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. Learned
counsel for the Union of India was unable to give any plausible explanation
which might have persuaded the appellants to have left a large portion of the
land in the application filed under Sec. 18 of the Act from claiming
enhancement in the amount of compensation.
656 In
order to appreciate the controversy we would like to Secs. 18 & 19 of the
Act which are reproduced as under:
Sec.
18. Reference to Court:
(1)
Any person interested who has not accepted the award may by written application
to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court, whether his objection to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2)
The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is
taken:
Provided
that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award,
within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in
other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Sec. 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the
Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
Sec.
19 Collector's statement to the Court- (1) In making the reference, the
Collector shall state for the information of the Court, in writing under his
hand,- (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees,
buildings or standing crops thereon;
(b)
the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land,
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under section 5 and 17,
or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under section 11;and
(d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, 657 grounds on which
the amount of compensation was determined.
(2) To
the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the
notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the
parties interested respectively." Under Sec. 18 of the Act the only
requirement for the person interested who had not accepted the award was to
move a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be
referred for the determination of the Court. One of the grounds for the accepting
the award was the amount of compensation. Once such application was moved it
was the duty of the Collector to make a reference to the Court.
Under
Sec. 19 of the Act while making the reference the Collector was required to
state for the information of the Court the particulars as mentioned in clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 19 of the Act. Thus it was the duty of the
Collector to mention not only the situation and extent of land but even
particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon. The
agriculturist whose land is acquired may not be fully conversant with the khasra
No. or area as entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the
State acquiring such land should not be allowed to take any advantage of such
ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an application is moved for making a
reference under Sec. 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the Collector to send
full information to the Court regarding the entire land acquired and it is
thereafter the duty of the Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Thus
looking into the matter from any angle, we are fully satisfied that the
Additional District Judge was justified in allowing the application filed by
the appellants and the High Court committed an error in deciding the matter
with a wrong approach and in a technical manner.
In the
result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated
10.8.1976 and uphold the order of the Additional District Judge dated
15.1.1971, with costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Back
