AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by leave from the judgment of Mr. Justice G.K. Misra in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1963.

(2.) PLOT No. 449 with an area of 0.30 cents with a house standing thereupon, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of the Marshalling Yard of the South Eastern Railway at village Bondomunda. As no compensation was awarded to the Appellant under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act and a reference under Section 19 of the Act was made by the Special officer, Land Acquisition and Reclamation, Rourkela, to the Special Judicial officer, Rourkela, who by his decision dated 26 -12 -1962 in Case No. 8 of 1962 rejected the Appellant's claim as per the reference, holding that the Collector had rightly refused to award any compensation to the Appellant. Against the said decision of the Special Judicial officer the Appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1963 in this Court, and Mr. Justice Misra hearing the appeal in the Single Bench confirmed the said decision.

(3.) IN this appeal we are therefore concerned only with the question whether the matter regarding compensation for the above mentioned land should have been and can now be taken up for consideration and decided on the facts of this case. The reference made by the Special officer, Land Acquisition and Reclamation, Rourkela, under Section 18 of Act 1 of 1894, was only with regard to the house on plot No. 449(P), as is apparent from Cols. 3, 4, 7 and 8 of his reference in Form 36 filed on 19 -7 -1962. In Col. 4 along with the name and address of the Appellant it is stated that "He claims compensation of the house on plot No. 449(P) on the ground that he had constructed the same before the publication of the notification 4(1)". In indicating the nature of the objection taken by the Appellant it is stated in Col. 7 that "Claim for compensation for the structure on the ground of cons traction before publication of 4(1) notification". From all these it is quite evident that the reference was made only with regard to the Appellant's claim for compensation of the house on plot No. 449(P), and there was no statement regarding claim for compensation for any land in the said reference. When this reference was drawn up as stated above, no objection by way of writ application or a revision to the High Court was preferred by the Appellant. He kept quiet over the matter and allowed the reference to be decided by the 'Court' as such. The Special Judicial officer naturally had to consider the Appellant's claim in accordance with the reference before him, having regard to the considerations laid down under Section 23 of the said Act. He derived jurisdiction from the reference and could not have travelled beyond the said reference. As the reference was confined strictly for the claim regarding compensation to the house standing on plot No. 449, the subject -matter for decision before the Special Judicial officer was only the compensation for the said house, and as such he could not have gone beyond what actually was referred to him, in order to grant compensation for the above mentioned land. The Special Judicial officer therefore was justified in giving a finding only regarding the compensation of the house in question and not the land, as claimed by the Appellant. That being so, in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1963 in this Court Mr. Justice Misra did not proceed to decide the Appellant's claim for compensation for the land in question. At the outset of his judgment it was correctly stated that "The reference out of which this appeal arises does not relate to the compensation of the land on which the house stands". On the above view of the matter the Appellant cannot have any grievance against the decision of the learned Single Judge.