http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4632 of 2006

PETITIONER: Shyamali Das                                                     

RESPONDENT: Illa Chowdhry & Ors.                                             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.18012 of 2006 @ CC No. 3531 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA,  J :

       Delay condoned.

       Leave granted.

       This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th  September, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in  C.O. No. 347 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the revision application filed  by Respondent No. 1 herein from a judgment and order dated 26th August,  2005 was allowed.

       Appellant and Respondent No. 3 claimed themselves to be the heirs  and legal representatives of Rani Rashmoni.  The appellant states that after  demise of Rani Rashmoni, the entire estate comprising Touzi No. 145  devolved upon Raja Amrita Nath Das.  Upon his demise, the property  devolved upon his four sons whereafter a partition took place amongst his  legal heirs.   

       A part of Tauzi No. 145 was admittedly acquired in the year 1993 for  construction of housing estate by the West Bengal Housing Board.  Name of  Respondent No. 1 herein admittedly appeared in the record of rights.  She  was given notice of acquisition.  Possession of the land was taken from the  respondent on 16.07.1997.  An award was made by the Land Acquisition  Collector on 26.11.1998.  Dissatisfied with the said award passed by the  Collector, the respondent made a request to the Collector to make a  reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short  "the Act"); pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof a reference was  made on 18.02.1999.  Some other references were also made at the instance  of Respondent No. 1 which were registered as L.A. Case Nos. 3 to 35, 38  and 39 of 2001.   

       On or about 15.09.2000, the appellant filed a purported public interest  litigation before the High Court of Calcutta which was marked as writ  petition No. 14842 of 2000 challenging the acquisition of land and change in  the names of the owners thereof in the record of rights.  By an order dated  15.09.2000, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.   

       The appellant filed a suit bearing suit No. 57 of 2001 claiming title  over the said property on 7.09.2001 in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, Sr.  Division inter alia for passing a decree for mandatory injunction restraining  the defendants therein from taking any money from the Land Acquisition  Collector and for declaration that the appellant was the rightful owner of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

properties described in the Schedule appended thereto and also for a decree  for recovery of possession.  The said suit is still pending.

       Although an award had been made, the appellant filed two  applications, one under Sections 11 and 11-A of the Act on 5.08.2004 before  the Collector and another under Sections 5 and 5-A thereof objecting to the  acquisition of the land thereby.  Concededly, the said applications were not  maintainable at that stage.   

       She filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil  Procedure praying for her impleadment in the reference proceedings inter  alia on the premise that she had filed the aforementioned suit No. 57 of  2001.  The said application was dismissed by an order dated 22.06.2004 by  the learned Land Acquisition Judge opining that she was not a ’person  interested’ within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act.  It was held that as  the jurisdiction of the reference court arises out of the order of reference, the  provisions of Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was not  maintainable.  The correctness or otherwise of the said order has not been  questioned and, thus, it attained finality.   

       She also filed a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta which was  marked as Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2000.  A learned Single Judge of the  said High Court opined:

"This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot  determine the entitlement to the compensation  awarded.  Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved,  it is open to her to apply before the collector for  reference under section 30 read with section 31 of  the Land Acquisition Act if she is so advised.   Section 30 does not postulate any time limit and as  such it can be made at any point of time if such  application is made, the collector may decide the  same and pass appropriate order on the said  application in accordance with law.  I (sic)  necessary, by making reference under the  provision of section 30 and may also resort to  section 31 if she is so advised according to his own  wisdom and discretion after having examined the  dispute raised that there are prima facie dispute  existing which required to be examined.  In such  circumstances, the collector is not entitled to  adjudicate the dispute which is the subject matter  of adjudication by a court, it is only to say that  there is no prima facie case raising any dispute and  if prima facie case exists then he has to make the  reference under section 30 read with section 31.   This decision is to be taken before further  disbursement is made.  The collector will also hear  the other no appear (sic) respondents whom the  petitioner will serve a copy of this order along with  a copy of the writ petition within a period of one  week from date, in default, this order will stand  recalled."

       It is not in dispute that no such application was filed by her under the  said provisions.  She, thus, did not avail the opportunity to take recourse to  law.   

       She filed another application for grant of probate which was marked  as OS No. 1 of 2006.  An order under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of  Civil Procedure was passed in relation thereto by the learned Addl. District  Judge at Alipore holding it to be frivolous in nature stating:

"The plaintiff herself stated that the original Will is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

allowed in connection with case no. 33 of 1961,  District Delegate Judge, Alipore.  In this  connection the Ld. Lawyer for the defendants  referred a decision reported in 73 CWN 820  wherein it has been held that the Will in question  and for which the present suit filed by the  defendant granting probate is forged i.e. the  alleged Will made by testator Amrita Nath on 17th  April, 1921

       It is very funny thing that the plaintiff  prayed for granting letter of administration of the  Will estate under the said Will in respect of the  properties and securities and other assets  particularly mentioned in the schedule A, B and C  in favour of the plaintiff but nowhere in the plaint  about any whispering about the Will when it was  made and also the plaintiff did not mention ’C’  schedule in the plaint.

       Considering the above facts and  circumstances and the evidence on record I am of  opinion that even if all averments in the plaint are  accepted in toto, does not disclose any clear right  to sue and not possible to grant any relief as sought  for and I am also further observed that the suit is  frivolous and not on the facts of it can be decided  by this Trial Court to avoid arduous procedure for  trial as such the present petition filed by the  defendant to decide the maintainability of the suit  as a preliminary issue is justified and answered  against the plaintiff."   

       Her application before the revenue authorities, however, succeeded in  2005.  Operation of the said order, however, was stayed by the High Court.   Relying on or on the basis of the said purported subsequent event, another  application was filed by the appellant herein for her impleadment in the  reference proceeding.   

       The reference cases were allowed by the learned Special Land  Acquisition Judge by judgment and award dated 26th August, 2004.  An  application was filed by the appellant for setting aside the said judgment of  the Land Acquisition Judge.  The said application was entertained and a  miscellaneous case was directed to be registered.  By an order dated 12th  September, 2005, a direction was made that payments with regard to LA  case No. 3 to 33, 38 and 39 be kept in abeyance until further orders.

       Respondent No. 1 moved an application before the learned Special  Judge on 12th September, 2005 whereupon the earlier order was clarified  stating that the same would not affect the process of depositing of  compensation amount in court.  An application was filed to vacate the ex- parte stay but the same was refused by an order dated 17th September, 2005.

       The applications filed by Respondent No. 1 under Article 227 were  allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

       Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, submitted that she should be given an opportunity to get her title  in respect of Touzi No. 145 adjudicated at some forum.  Having regard to  the subsequent events, viz., correction of the revenue records in the year  2005 and keeping in view of the fact that the aforementioned title suit No. 57  of 2001 is still pending, the High Court, it was urged, committed a serious  error in passing the impugned judgment.  It was submitted that unless some  protection is afforded to the appellant by imposing conditions in regard to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector, it  would not be secured.

       Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

       The Act is a complete code by itself.  It provides for remedies not  only to those whose lands have been acquired but also those who claim the  awarded amount or any apportionment thereof.  A Land Acquisition Judge  derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference.  It is bound thereby.  Its  jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of  compensation paid under the award made by the Collector.  It is not within  its domain to entertain any application of pro intersse suo or in the nature  thereof.   

       The learned Reference Judge, therefore, was entirely correct in  passing its order dated 22.6.2004.  A finding of fact was arrived at therein  that the appellant was not a party interested in the proceeding within the  meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act.  The said order attained finality.  It could  not have, thus, been reopened.  Another application for impleadment,  therefore, was not maintainable.  It may be true that in the proceeding of a  suit, the court can in a changed situation entertain a second application under  Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.  But, the learned  Reference Judge having opined, while passing its order dated 26.2.2004, that  the appellant was not a person interested, in our opinion, a second  application despite the subsequent event was not maintainable.

       It is one thing to say that a proceeding under Sections 30 and 31 of the  Act was maintainable at the instance of the appellant.  She was given an  opportunity to file the same by the Calcutta High Court in terms of its order  dated 22.09.2000.  She did not avail the said opportunity.  Having not  availed the opportunity, in our opinion, she was not entitled to be impleaded  as a party.         This Court had some occasion to consider the question as to who  would fall within the ambit of the term "person inherited".

       In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and Another [(2003) 3 SCC 128], it  was opined that a State who claims ownership of the land in question was  not a party interested stating:

"\005If it was a government land there was no  question of initiating the proceedings for  acquisition at all. The Government would not  acquire the land, which already vests in it. A  dispute as to pre-existing right or interest of the  State Government in the property sought to be  acquired is not a dispute capable of being  adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for  determination either under Section 18 or Section  30 of the Act. The reference made by the Collector  to the Court was wholly without jurisdiction and  the Civil Court ought to have refused to entertain  the reference and ought to have rejected the same.  All the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act  beginning from the reference and adjudicating  thereon by the Civil Court suffer from lack of  inherent jurisdiction and are therefore a nullity  liable to be declared so."

       In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v.  Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and Another [(2003) 5 SCC 561], this Court  opined:

"It is well established that the reference court gets

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under  Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land  Acquisition Officer and that civil court has got the  jurisdiction and authority only to decide the  objections referred to it. The reference court  cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide  matters which are not referred to it\005"

       We may also notice that prima facie the appellant cannot be said to  have any right title and interest in the property but we do not intend to  express our final opinion thereupon as the matter is pending consideration  before the Civil Court.

       A disputant is entitled to an interim order, provided he is a party  thereto.  If for one reason or the other, he cannot be impleaded as a party to  the proceeding, the Court would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim  order in his favour.

       If the impleadment application was not maintainable, it was, required  to be dismissed in limine.  It could not have been entertained only for  pressing an interim order.  Law does not contemplate exercise of such a  jurisdiction by a court of law.  Any such order passed is coram non judice.

       We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal.  However, before  parting with this matter, we may only observe that although contention of  Mr. Ghosh is that the civil suit was not maintainable in view of a decision of  this Court in Laxmi Chand & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia & Ors. [JT  1995 (8) SC 195], it is not necessary for us to express any opinion  thereupon.  We may furthermore place on record that a contention has been  raised by Mr. Ghosh that the suit has been dismissed.  We in this matter are  not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the said statement.

       For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed with costs.   Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.