KRISHNA SARANLAL Vs. COLLECTOR-DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this revision is whether a dispute about title to the land sought to be acquired between the State Government and any person laying claim to it can be referred to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) THE question arises in this manner. Since land measuring 333.08 acres, including khasra Nos. 72, 73/1, 74, 75 and 80 of village khasadihin Durg Tahsil, was urgently required for the Bhilai Steel Project, proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act. For brevity, that Act would hereinafter be called the Act, and, unless otherwise indicated, the sections mentioned would mean sections of that Act. As usual, there was a notification under Section 4, a direction under Section 17 (4) that Section 5 -A would not apply and a notification under Section 6 for acquiring the land. General and special notices under Section 9 were also issued and served and, thereupon, under Section 17 (1), possession was taken. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer, while awarding to the applicant Rs. 18,163 -14 as compensation for khasra No. 72 and 80, held that, since khasra No. 73 (1) (embankment), 74 (Paithee) and 75 (tank) belonged to the State, there could be no question of payment of any compensation for those khasra Nos. to any one. Thereupon, at the instance of the applicant, who had not accepted the award, a reference was made to the Court under Section 18. The Additional District Judge, Durg, who dealt with the reference, held on a preliminary point raised before him that the question of title to khasra Nos. 73/1, 74 and 75 including the failure to award any compensation therefor, was outside the purview of Section 18 and could not, therefore, be referred under that section. Against that decision, the applicant has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IN Balkrishna Udayar vs. Vasudeva Aiyar, 44 IA 261 the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction was empowered to act under Section 10 of the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863. The High Court entertained under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a revision against its order. The matter was taken to the Privy Council and it was contended that no revision lay to the High Court. Their Lordships observed; -