UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional Districl Judge passed on 18th February, 1975 purporting to alow the application of Ram Kumar and seven other persons made on 16-1-1971 under sections 151 to 153 Civil Procedure Code in the following circumstances.

(2.) Certain fields belonging to Ram Kumar and others were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made by the : Collector offering certain compensation to the owners. Ra,m Kumar and others along with certain other persons whose lands also had been acquired made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Collector staling that the land belonging to them as per schedule attached to the application under section 18 had been the subject of the Land Acquisition Collector's Award No. 2024. The schedule of land belonging to the petitioners and attached to the petition, however, did not give a complete list of all the fields which had been acquired but listed only some of them. At the end of the schedule, however, appear the words "etc. etc.". In paragraph 9 of the petition it was stated that the petitioners claim compensation for the whole of their land. On this petition reference was made by the Collector by sending a statement to the court of the Additional District Judge under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this statement only those fields were included which had been listed in the schedule attached to the application under section 18. In the proceeding before the Additional District Judge, the Union of India filed preliminary objections to the reference. The relevant objections were that firstly the claimants had not mentioned their shares in the fields a list of which had been attached to the petition under section 18. The claimants should, therefore, be called upon either to admit the statement sent by the Collector under section 19 or to file an amended reference petition staling their shares individually. Secondly, in the schedule attached to the reference petition, the petitioners ga,ve a list of certain fields and then ended by saying "etc. etc.". The words "etc. etc." have no legal entity. The claimants may, therefore, be called upon to state the fields included in the word "etc.". The Additional District Judge on 11-4-1968 asked the counsel for the claimants to examine the preliminary objections made by the Union of India and to make a statement about it on 7-6-1968. Accordingly on 13-11-1968 the counsel for the claimants admitted the correctness of section 19 statement sent by the Land Acquisition Collector with regard to the area, shares etc. The Additional District Judge thereupon dismissed the preliminary' objections made by the Union of India, against the reference petition by the claimants. The Additional District Judge made an award as to the enhancement of the compensation payable only for those fields which were included in the statement by the Collector under section 19 on the strength of the schedule attached to the reference petition. The award of the Addition^ District Judge did not consider any other fields which could be included in the word "etc." at the end of the schedule of the reference petition in view of the statement made by the claimants' counsel admitting the correctness of section 19 statement sent by the Collector. After the award, however, an application under sections 151 to 153 Civil Procedure Code was made by the claimants for a review and amendment of the award made by the Additional District Judge and for an order that the Land Acquisition Collector should amend the statement which he had sent under section 19 by including therein other fields of the claimants which had not been listed in the schedule attached to the reference petition but which were included in the word "etc." The review petition was allowed by the Additional District Judge. Hence this revision against the said order allowing the review petition.

(3.) The questions for decision in the revision petition are as follows: (1) Whether sections 151 to 153 Civil Procedure Code apply and enable the Additional District Judge to allow the review petition ? and (2) Whether the said order allowing the review petition was an illegal exercise of his jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge and is as such liable to be set aside in the revision petition ? QUESTION NO. 1 :