LAWS(MPH)-1995-4-60

BALRAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On April 24, 1995
BALRAM CHANDRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTIFICATION under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette on 19.10.1957 followed by a declaration under section 6 published on 6.11.1957. The possession was taken on 7.12.1957. The Collector made his award on 29.9.1958. The petitioner sought for reference under section 18 and the Collector referred the matter on 8.11.1986. The District Judge in his award dated 16.12.1985 declared the notification under section 4 (1) and the declaration under section 6 to be null and void. Against that, an appeal was filed before the High Court under section 54. By the judgment and order dated 31.10.1994, the Division Bench has set aside the order holding that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the notification under section 4 (1) to be void. Thus, this SLP.

(2.) MR . Sunil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual vehemence, contended that the notification under section 4 (1) did not contain the particulars required thereunder and the District Judge was unable to proceed with the determination of the compensation pursuant to the reference under section 18. Therefore, the District Judge has within his power 10 declare the notification and declaration as not valid in law though it may be wrong 10 say that they are null and void. We find no force in the contention.

(3.) THUS , it could be seen that the District Judge is enjoined to go into the objections raised by the claimants in making enquiry under section 20 and 10 pass an award under section 26 of the Act with reference to the objections raised by the claimants in respect of the area of the land or the amount of compensation. It is, therefore, clear that the reference Court cannot go behind the reference and give a declaration that the notification under section 4 (1) and declaration under section 6 are null and void or illegal. His duty and power are confined vis -a -vis the provisions contained under sections 11, 18 and 20 to 23 and he would not traverse beyond his power.