SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected appeals against a judgment of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore directing that three references under the Land Acquisition Act should be returned inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction to deal with them. The facts -which gave rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows: On 4th November 1933, the Government notified the owners of five bungalows situate at the Cantonments at Cawnpore that they were going to acquire the same. Bungalows Nos. 20 and 71 were owned by the Allahabad Bank, Ltd., who are the respondents in First Appeal No. 93 of 1935. Bungalow No. 43 was owned by Kali Charan and Jagannath who are respondents in First Appeal No. 94 of 1935. Bungalow No. 26 was owned by Kishori Lal who is the respondent in First Appeal No. 96 of 1935. The Government also notified their intention to acquire-No. 37 which was owned by Sital Prasad and others. Sital Prasad and others are respondents in another first appeal, namely First Appeal No. 95 of 1935; but we are unable to deal with this appeal today by reason of the fact that Sital Prasad has died and the names of his representatives have not yet been brought on to the record.

(2.) The owners of these bungalows claimed that they were not only owners of the buildings, but were also interested in the sites of the buildings. The Allahabad Bank claimed that they were permanent lessees, whereas the other owners claimed that they were either perpetual tenants or licensees under a license which could not be revoked. However it is clear that all the four owners of the bungalows claimed to be interested not only in the buildings but in the land forming the site of the buildings. In due course four cases were registered before the Collector and on 5 March 1934 the Collector gave his awards. The Collector held that the sites of these bungalows belonged to the-Government and that the owners of the- bungalows had no interest whatsoever in. the land. Accordingly they were awarded no compensation for the land. They were-admittedly the owners of the buildings and varying sums were awarded to the four owners.

(3.) The owners being dissatisfied with the awards of the Collector applied for references; to the learned District Judge under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and in these-references the four owners make it clear that they were claiming an interest in the land as opposed to the buildings and that they wore aggrieved by the fact that the Collector had not awarded them any compensation in respect of their alleged interest in the land. In due course the matters came before the learned District Judge who disposed of the four cases in one judgment. All the parties agreed that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to deal with the references, but the learned District Judge has rightly pointed out that jurisdiction could not be given to him by consent of the parties. He considered the question of jurisdiction and eventually held that as the Government in effect acquired only the buildings and not the land forming the site of the buildings the references to the learned District Judge were not competent and accordingly he had no jurisdiction to entertain them. He therefore directed that the references should be returned, and it is against that judgment that the present appeals have been brought.