TEJO SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the order that is challenged before us is one made by the Special Land Acquisition Judge of 24-Parganas on November 29, 1955 by which he has added opposite party No. 2 Sagarmal Agarwalla as a party to a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows:

(2.) Mr. Mallick appearing in support of the Rule has argued before us that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge acted without jurisdiction in deciding controversial questions of title which were foreign to the enquiry under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has placed before us Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act which authorises the Collector after making an award to take possession of the land "which shall thereupon vest "absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances." Mr. Mallick has argued that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge has not come to any finding on the question whether possession had been taken by the Collector as contemplated by Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. If such possession bad been taken by the Collector, the judgment-debtor Asaram Thikadar could not have any saleable interest in the subject matter of the acquisition of February 18, 1955. when it was sold in auction.

(3.) Mr. Mitra, appearing for Sagarmall Agarwalla, has used an affidavit in opposition in which it is stated that according to the information supplied to his client on an information slip "C.S. plots Nos. 546 and 547 were taken possession of partly "on January 31, 1949 and on June 24, 1955." This statement, in our opinion, is hardly sufficient for the disposal of the controversy between the parties. We do not know whether the entire subject matter of the acquisition is covered by C.S. plots Nos. 546 and 547 nor do we know how much of those two plots was taken possession of by the Collector on January 31, 1949, and how much on June 24, 1955. But apart from this, the point that has been strongly argued by the learned advocate for the Petitioner is that upon the authorities of this Court it is quite clear that the jurisdiction of the Special Land Acquisition Judge in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is confined to the objections which were raised by the persons who were parties to the proceeding before the Collector which brought about the reference. Any question which is not covered by the objections raised before the Collector cannot be gone into in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of this proposition, Mr. Mallick has placed before us the following decisions of this Court Gobinda Kumar Roy Chowdhury v. Debendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury,1907 12 CALWN 98where Rampini A.C., J. and Sharfuddin, J. held that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not open to the Special Judge to go into questions raised by parties who did not object to the award and apply for a reference: Probal Chandra Mukherjee v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee,1908 12 CalWN 987, where Maclean, C.J. and Dass, J. held that a Land Acquisition Judge has no jurisdiction to deal with objections except those which were made by persons who were parties to the proceedings before the Collector and which brought about the reference; Mahananda Roy v. Srish Chandra Tewari,1910 7 IndCas 10where Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ. laid down the same principle following the decision in. Probal Chandra Mukherjee's case. All these decisions were considered by Mukherjee and Roxburgh, JJ. in the case of Sm. Indumati Debi v. Ttilsi Thakurani,1941 45 CalWN 912, where it was pointed out by their Lordships that a Land Acquisition Judge dealing with a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition. Act has no jurisdiction to add as a party a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Collector and who wishes to raise a new question not covered by the reference as made. In that case, the reference was undoubtedly under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act whereas in the case before us the reference was under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The distinction between a reference under Section 18 and a reference under Section 30 was pointed out in the body of the judgment in Indumati Debi's case and their Lordships observed that although the scope of an enquiry under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act may be wider than the scope of an enquiry under Section 18 still the jurisdiction of a court in a reference under Section 30 is confined to the consideration of the dispute that is expressly referred to it by the Collector. Wow, if this be the principle with regard to an enquiry under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it must be so in the case of an enquiry under Section 18, the scope of which is narrower. Mr. Mitra, appearing on behalf of opposite party Sagarmall Agarwalla, has placed before us the decision of this Court in the case of Promotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das A ddy,1910 11 CLJ 420, where Mookherjee and Teunon, JJ. held that under certain circumstances it was open to the Land Acquisition Judge to add a party in a reference pending before him. In that case the subject matter of the acquisition was sold at a revenue sale during the pendency of the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Collector and before the making of an award and the revenue sale was also confirmed with the result that title vested in the revenue sale purchaser on a date which was four months before the date of taking possession of the property by the Government. In these circumstances, there can be no possible doubt upon the admitted facts that the title of the original proprietor had passed to the revenue sale purchaser during the pendency of the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Collector and such a revenue sale purchaser was allowed to be added as a party with the reservation that in the Land Acquisition proceedings he could raise only those objections which had been raised by the defaulting proprietor and that any new right which he had acquired as a purchaser at a revenue sale could be decided only in a separate suit and not in a proceeding before the Land Acquisition Judge. Mr. Mitra also relied upon the case of Golap Khan v. Bholanath Marick,1912 12 CLJ 545, where the title of the referring claimant passed to a third party under a compromise. In these circumstances, Mookerjee and Carnuff, JJ., held that the attaching creditor should be added as a party to the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Collector on the same ground as in the case of Promotha Nath Mitra. A review of these authorities makes it clear that although under certain circumstances the Land Acquisition Judge may add a new party to a reference he will not exercise that power if the addition of that party involves a decision on any controversial question of law or of fact which is not covered by the objections put forward before the Land Acquisition Collector. Now, the object of the application filed by opposite party No. 2, Sagarmall Agarwalla, in the case before us on October 3, 1955, is two fold. In the first place, he wants an adjudication on the question, that he has acquired a valid title to Asha Villa Garden House by his auction purchase on February 18, 1955, and in the second place he wants that since the title of the original proprietor has been extinguished as a result of his auction purchase, the entire compensation is to be paid to him rather than to the original proprietor or his heirs. I have no doubt, in my mind, that neither of these questions is covered by the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and as such, the Special Land Acquisition Judge has no jurisdiction to go into these questions. I have, in an earlier part of this judgment, summarised the findings of the Special Land Acquisition Judge with regard to the title of the auction purchaser Sagarmall Agarwalla. Those findings, in my opinion, are entirely outside the scope of the enquiry in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.