CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY Vs. AMARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 52 of the J. and K. Land Acquisition Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as the Act, a preliminary objection has been raised that the same is liable to be dismissed, as the court-fee paid on it is inadequate.

(2.) To accomplish the public purpose of laying out a housing colony in the Railway Head Complex, Jammu, land measuring 669 kanals and 17 marlas, belonging to several owners in villages Chhanni Rama, Chhanni Beeja, and Chhanni Himmat was, in the first phase, acquired by Collector, Jammu, by his award dated 25-1-1977. The land was categorised according to its quality, and different rates for different categories were fixed by him for determining its compensation. Out of this land, Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu, who is the appellant before us, was held entitled to receive compensation for 74 kanals. Two persons, namely, Amar Nath and Rattan Singh, who are herein the first and the second respondents respectively, claimed that they and not the Custodian were the owners of these 74 kanals of land and thus entitled to receive its compensation to the exclusion of the appellant which too, according to them, had been wrongly assessed by the Collector. They made an application in terms of Section 18 of the Act, requiring the Collector to make a reference on these two points to District Judge, Jammu. The Collector made a reference accordingly. Addl. District Judge, Jammu to whom this reference was transferred by the District Judge, treating it to have been made under Section 31 of the Act, eventually held the first and the second respondents exclusively entitled to receive the compensation assessed by the Collector, since before him, challenge to the adequacy of the compensation was given up by these respondents. The appellant, feeling aggrieved of this order, has challenged it in this appeal and has paid on it a total court-fee of Rs. 7.50, including the process fee. This is how the preliminary objection.

(3.) At the very outset, we may point that the learned Additional District Judge was not right in treating the reference as one made under Section 31. It had as a matter of fact neither been made under Section 31, nor could it, in the circumstances of the case, have been made under the said section. A reference under Section 31 differs from one made under Section 18 in more than one way. Firstly, a reference under Section 31 is merely confined to the question of the apportionment of compensation settled by the Collector amongst its various claimants, or to the question as to who out of them is entitled to receive it. A reference under Section 18, besides these two questions, may be made on the question of measurement of the land acquired or/and on the question of adequacy of the amount of compensation determined by the Collector.