SARDARMAL Vs. COLLECTOR SEHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 242, 248, 249 and 250 of 1969 also. All these revisions arise out of proceedings in the lower court following references made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By section 3 of the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment)Act, 1959 (5 of 1959), the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to the bhopal area, was amended as follows :

(2.) THE first question for consideration is whether such a plea can be raised in proceedings grounded on a reference under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. 1894. Sub-section (1) of that sec ion reads:

(3.) IT was, however, argued by Shri Banerjee that the jurisdiction to consider an objection relating to compensation with reference to the matters specified in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, necessarily implied jurisdiction to consider whether any amendment engrafted on that section was constitutional. He made the point that such consideration was, in effect, an ascertainment of the matters which could legally be taken into account in determining the compensation and was in that sense strictly within the rule laid down in Pramatha Nath v. Secretary of State (Supra) and State of Bihar v. Kundan Singh (Supra ). In support of this view, the counsel relied upon Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector Thana (A I R 1965 S. C. 1096.) and Balammal v. State of Madras (A I R 1968 S. C. 1425.) wherein the constitutional validity of the relevant enactments was successfully challenged in appeals arising out of land acquisition references. The point whether such a question could be considered in land Acquisition references or appeals arising therefrom was neither raised nor decided. As at present advised, we are inclined to think that a question of this nature is outside the scope of the special jurisdiction under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since we are not pronouncing any considered opinion on the question, we would here assume that, in the sense contended for, it can be raised but, as we would show immediately, there is, we think, no substance in the main ground urged before us in support of the invalidity of the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1959.