http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT. AMBEY DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1513            JT 1996 (3)   674  1996 SCALE  (3)121

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court made in Appeal from Original Decree No. 220 and 221 of 1957 dated September 21, 1976.  The only  question that arises in this appeal is: whether one  of the  co-sharers can claim enhancement of the compensation without  seeking reference  under Section 18 of Land Acquisition  Act, 1894  (1 of  1894)  (for  short,  the ‘Act’) in  a reference  at the  instance of  one of  the co- sharers.      The admitted  facts are  that 25  acres of land being a portion of  Plot No.400  of Khata  No.92 in village Behea in Shahbad  District   (renamed  Bhojpur)  was  acquired  under Section 4(1)  of the  Act for public purpose. Publication of the notification  under Section   4(1) was made on September 14, 1957.  In the  enquiry under Section 11 made by the Land Acquisition Officer  the appellant  had laid  her claim  for 1/4th share  of the compensation along with other co-owners. It is  also found  as a  fact that  in the award made by the Collector, he apportioned the compensation into 1/4th  share to each  of the  co-owners and the compensation was received by the  respective parties,  one of the co owners sought for reference to  the Civil  Court under  Section 18  which  was made. The  Court had  enhanced the compensation. Thereafter, the appellant  filed the  appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation in  respect of  her land  on par with other co- owners. That  claim was  rejected by  the High Court holding that the  appellant  had  not  made  any  application  under Section 18   after  the award  was made  by the Collector on January 6,  1958 ands  therefore, she is not entitled to the enhanced compensation. Thus, this appeal by  special leave.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  contended that under Section  53 of the Act, the procedure prescribed under CPC is  applicable to  the proceedings  of the  Civil  Court unless they  are inconsistent  with any  of  the  provisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

contained in  the Act.  Since Order  1, Rule 10 CPC requires impleadment  of   all  necessary  and  proper  parties,  the appellant being a necessary party to the proceedings, she is entitled to  the same  compensation as  was awarded  to  the other claimants.  We find  no force  in the  contention. The scheme of  the Act  is inconsistent  with CPC  regarding the entitlement to  claim compensation  under the  Act. The  CPC provides  only  the  procedural  format  to  adjudicate  the dispute. After the award was made under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer  was  required  to  issue  notice  under Section 12  to the parties. As contemplated under Section 30 of the  Acts  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  receive  the compensation either  under protest  or without protest. When the compensation  is received under protest under subsection (1) of Section 18, the application in writing has to be made within the  limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) to the Land Acquisition  Officer objecting  to either extent of the land, classification,  value of the land or apportionment of the compensation and upon receipt thereof reference to Court would be made. Thereunder the applicant shall be required to state  the   grounds  on   which  he/she   objects  to   the compensation etc. Valid reference is a pre-condition for the civil Court  to adjudicate  the  objections  raised  in  the reference application. In this case, it is found by the High Court that  the appellant had not made any application under Section 18(1).  The  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  Court  to determine higher compensation, as laid down under Section 23 of the Act, would arise only when a valid reference has been made under  Section 18 within the prescribed limitation. The jurisdiction of  the Court  is founded  on a valid reference and then  the civil Court gets jurisdiction to determine the compensation on  the basis  of the  objections raised by the claimant.      We accept  the finding  of  the  High  Court  that  the appellant had  not made  any application  under Section  18, though the  appellant has  asserted that  she  did  make  an application but  no evidence has been placed before the High Court or in this Court. Thus, it is difficult to accept that such an  application  was  in  fact  made  before  the  Land Acquisition Officer  within the  limitation prescribed under Section 18(2)  of the  Act. Accordingly,  we hold  that  the appellant had  not filed  any application, as required under Section 18(1) read with Section 18(2) of the Act. Section 53 does not apply to the facts of the case. The procedure prescribed under Section 18 and 30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. Order 1, Rule 10 CPC would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. As held earlier, making an application in writing under sub-section (l) and within the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18; only on its receipt, under Section, 20 civil Court gets jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to conduct enquiry, as contemplated under  the Act. At that stage, the procedure of trial etc.,  as contemplated  under the CPC, would apply and Section 53  of the  Act would  become applicable.  It is  an admitted position that the co-owner filed an application and had sought  reference under  Section 18  in respect  of  his share only. So, it is, as a fact, claims for compensation in

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

specie  and   was  paid  towards  1/4th  share  to  all  the claimants. By  no stretch  of imagination,  the  application under Section  18 (1)  by one  of the  co-sharers would,  be treated as  one  made  on  behalf  of  all  the  co-sharers. Accordingly, we  hold that  the appellant is not entitled to lay any  higher compensation  pursuant to  an award, made by the reference  Court under Section 26 at the instance of one of the co-owners.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   dismissed  but  in  the circumstances without costs.