STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A supposed conflict of precedent had necessitated the admission of this Letters Patent appeal for hearing before the Full Bench. However, it is now the un-rebutted stand of the appellant-State of Haryana that the matter stands concluded in their favour both by a Full Bench judgment of this Court as also its approval by the final Court.

(2.) In view of the above the briefest reference to the facts suffices. The respondent-landowners aggrieved by the compensation awarded to them by the Collector in acquisition proceedings preferred applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to the Court for enhancement of the compensation. After notice to the Government, the references were duly made to the Court. However, before the Additional District Judge, a preliminary objection was strenuously raised on behalf of the appellant-State that these references were incompetent as the conditions prescribed by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were not fulfilled. The specific ground taken was that the references were sought after the prescribed period of limitation and that the claimants having accepted the compensation without protest were disentitled to seek a reference to the Court. The preliminary objection was overruled by the learned Additional District Judge and compensation was enhanced by him.

(3.) The State of Haryana then preferred regular first appeals against the said judgment. Therein the only question raised was that the references were incompetent for specific reasons which had been urged before the learned Additional District Judge. The learned single Judge noticed that the solitary issue that arose for decision was whether it was open to a Court to which a reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to go behind it and investigate whether the same was properly made. Both on principle and following a number of authorities including the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1958 Punj 490 (by which he held himself to be bound) the learned single Judge held that the Court had no power to go behind the reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 and dismissed all the appeals.