SACHIDA NAND PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER was called out yesterday for hearing but nobody appeared to argue on behalf of the petitioners. Matter was passed over yesterday to avoid unnecessary dismissal for non - appearance. Today also, nobody has appeared.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that the original petitioner had died during the pendency of this reference and therefore, a vakalatnama was filed on 14.3.2005 by his legal heirs and the names of learned counsel of the legal heirs appear in the cause list.

(3.) THIS Court finds itself in a peculiar situation. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pending before the Subordinate Judge -ll, Saran, Chapra since 1984. The landowner has apparently not challenged the notification of the State Government issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or issued at later stages. Clearly, no challenge was made through writ petition or through civil suit for more than a decade or two and then such challenge was raised before the civil court which has limited role to play under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Subordinate Judge rightly came to the conclusion that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the price of the acquired land, he had no jurisdiction to decide the bigger issues raised by the applicant through the petition under Section 113 of the CPC. However, learned Subordinate Judge was clearly in error that since he had no jurisdiction, a reference was required to be made to this Court under Section 113 of the CPC. Since a new bigger issue sought to be raised by the landowner was not covered by the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge in a reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , he was competent to dismiss the application on the ground that the issue raised before him was beyond his competence in the pending proceeding. Instead of doing that, he has made reference to this Court without specifying as to on what issue he is seeking opinion of this Court.