MAKHAN LAL Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge of Cawnpore, refusing to entertain a reference made by the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, and to give an award on the ground that the Collector had no power to make the reference, and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the same.

(2.) Stripped of all unnecessary details, the facts that led to the reference are as follows: Certain land situated in the civil lines of Cawnpore, was needed for Gur Narain Khattari High School, and a notification to that effect was published in the Official Gazette, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, Land Acquisition Act. Tha land was covered with buildings which admittedly belonged to the applicants before us. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, a public notice of thefact that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for "all interest in such land" may be made to the Collector was issued on 19 August 1926. The applicants before us, then, filed an application putting forward a claim to the ownership of the site and, in the alternative, claiming to be permanent lessees of the same, and claimed compensation for their interest in the site either as proprietors or as permanent lessees, apart from the compensation, claimed by them for the buildings standing on the same. The Collector hold that the Government was the proprietor of the site and the assertion of the applicants that they were either the proprietors or the permanent lessees of the site was unfounded, and that their poaition was merely that of tenants at will. He accordingly, held that the applicants were only entitled to compensation in rospoct: of the buildings and were not entitled to any compensation with respect to the site. He assessed the value of the buildings at Rs. 48,235, and adding 15 per cent on that amount, on account of compulsory acquisition, awarded to the applicants in all a sum of Rs. 55,470-4-0, as compensation for the buildings. The applicants were dissatisfied with the award. They took exception to the finding of the Collector that the site belonged to to the Government and that their position was that of tenants at will, and claimed that they were entitled to compensation with respect to the site. They also claimed that the compensation awarded for the buildings was inadequate and, accordingly, moved the Collector to make a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. No objection was taken before the Collector, that the Collector, in the circumstances mentioned above, was not competent to make a reference, and the Collector referred the matter to the District Judge.

(3.) On receipt of the reference, the District Judge issued a notice in accordance with Section 20 of the Act and fixed certain issues for trial. The case was then transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge, who recorded the evidence adduced by both the parties and proceeded to hear the arguments. In the course of arguments, an objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party, that the question of title arising between the Government and the applicants could not be the subject of a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make the reference, nor had the Judge jurisdiction to determine and decide the same. The learned Judge gave effect to this contention and held that the amount of compensation to be awarded to the plaintiffs in this case depends entirely on. the nature of their interest in the land in dispute, but as I cannot decide the nature of their interest, 1 cannot entertain the reference about the amount of compensation also.