STATE OF U P Vs. BRIJ BEHARI SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. These are 8 appeals filed by the State Government under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred co as 'the Act' ).

(2.) SINCE the lands involved in these appeals were acquired under the same Notification, a common award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector and a common award under Section 26 of the Act was also made by civil court, these appeals are heard together with the consent of parties as the materials and points involved are the same.

(3.) ON rival contentions, following points require consideration: (i) Whether reference made to the civil court at the instance of Collector is maintainable? (ii) Whether it is within the period of limitation? (iii) Whether State Government otherwise has a right of appeal against the award? (iv) Whether apportionment as determined by civil court is correct? And (v) What is market value of the land? Mr. Swami Dayal, learned counsel for claimants is correct in his submission that reference not having been requisitioned by Land Reforms Commissioner, is not competent at instance of Collector of the District. It is seen that Principal of Engineering College brought to notice of the Collector of the District that 6 Annas interest has been determined by Land Acquisition Collector on basis of which compensation has been offered to respondents although they have no interest in the acquired land. District Collector sought for permission from Board of Revenue to requisition the Land Ac quisition Collector to make a reference for determination of interest of res pondents. ON obtaining permission from Board of Revenue, Collector requisitioned Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference. No provision of law or material has been brought to our notice to find that exercises power of Land Reforms Commissioner under Section 18 (3 ). It is not the authority to give permission to the Collector to make a reference. Thus, on basis of such permission of Board of Revenue, Collector was not authorised to move the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference to the civil court. Besides, determination of excessive compensation can be challenged in such reference. There is no scope for reference under Section 18 (3) in respect of apportion ment. Offer of 6 Annas of the amount of compensation to respondents declaring the balance 10 Annas interest to be of State Government cannot be assailed by State Government which is bound by the decision of the Collector though respondents can challenge the same in reference.