Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/27 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 11 March, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/27
GAHC010012872024
2025:GAU-AS:2808
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : LA.App./8/2024
FAZRUL HAQUE @ FAZRUL ALI AND 6 ORS.
S/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
2: MAHAMMAD ALI
S/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
3: ANJUL ALI
S/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
4: MANJUL ALI
S/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
Page No.# 2/27
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
5: SAZIDA BEGUM @ SAZITA BIBI
D/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
6: SAMASTA BEGUM @ SAMASTA BIBI
D/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
7: MANZILA BIBI @ JULI BEGUM
D/O LATE SAMSER ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAGOLIA PART II
NEAR CHECK GATE
PO CHHAGOLIA
PS GOLAKGANJ
DIST DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (LAND RECORDS) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DHUBRI
ASSAM 783301
------------
Page No.# 3/27
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.T. Sarkar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate
Mr. T.R. Gogoi, Advocate
Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellants. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned
Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue
Department, Government of Assam and Mr. D. Nath, the
learned Senior Government Advocate, Government of Assam
appears on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner/District
Collector.
2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of 1894") challenging
the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Court
of the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter
referred to as, "the learned Reference Court") whereby the
Page No.# 4/27
Reference proceedings being L.A. Case No. 109/2017 which
arises out of L.A. Case No. 1/2005-2006, Award No. 36 was
dismissed on 2 (two) technical grounds. First, on the ground that
the Reference proceeding was barred by limitation and secondly
on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 herein which is the
Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of
Assam was not arrayed as a party to the Reference proceedings
3. Taking into account that on the above two preliminary grounds
the Reference proceeding was dismissed, this Court has taken up
this appeal for disposal at the stage of "Admission" with the
consent of both the parties.
4. Mr. A.T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants submitted that the Appellants herein received the
amount of compensation on 07.01.2016 and immediately
thereafter on 30.01.2016, the Reference application was filed
before the Deputy Commissioner/the District Collector. He
submitted that this very aspect of the matter was not taken into
consideration. The learned counsel for the Appellants further
submitted that in terms with Section 20 of the Act of 1894, it is
the duty of the learned Reference Court to make parties and as
such the Learned Reference Court erred in law in dismissing the
Reference proceedings on the ground that some party was not
Page No.# 5/27
arrayed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants further submitted that as per the settled principle of
law, the Collector as well as the beneficiary of the acquisition
proceedings are required to be made parties.
5. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Revenue Department with all fairness submitted
that the Revenue and Disaster Management Department's role in
an acquisition proceedings is limited to the issuance of the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and granting the
approval for the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894
as well as for granting approval to the award when placed before
the Revenue Department. He submitted that if the Revenue
Department is the beneficiary, the department would be a person
interested and the Learned Reference Court is required to array
the Revenue Department as a party. In this regard, he referred
to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Neyvely Lignite Corporation LTD. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Neyvely and Others[1].
6. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing
on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector
submitted that from a perusal of paragraph No. 12 of the
judgment, it would be seen that the appellants herein have
admitted that the land was acquired in the year 2005-2006 and
Page No.# 6/27
as such, they ought to have been more diligent enough, for
which, the impugned judgment and order has been rightly
passed dismissing the Reference proceedings.
7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the impugned
Judgment and order frame the following two points for
determination:
(i) Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in
dismissing the Reference proceedings on the ground that it
is barred by Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894?
(ii) Whether the Reference proceedings could have been
dismissed on the ground of not arraying the Revenue and
Disaster Management Department of the Government of
Assam as a party to the said Reference proceedings?
8. Let this Court first take up the first point for determination. For
deciding the first point for determination, this Court finds it
appropriate to take note of Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The
said Section is reproduced herein below:
"18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted
the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter
be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation,
Page No.# 7/27
the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is
taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the
Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the
date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the
date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."
9. A perusal of the above quoted Section would show that any
person interested who had not accepted the award may by
written application to the Collector, may require that the matter
be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court on the
following aspects i.e., objection to the measurement of the land;
the amount of compensation; the person to whom it is payable
and/or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the
person interested. It is further seen from a perusal of Section
18(2) of the Act of 1894 that the period within what time the
application is required to be filed is mandated by the legislature.
In terms with Clause (a) of Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894, it is
stipulated that if the person making the application was present
or represented before the Collector at the time when the award
Page No.# 8/27
was made, then the period prescribed is within 6 (six) weeks
from the date of the Collector's award. In terms with Sub-Clause
(b) of Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894, the period prescribed is
within 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from
the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 or within 6
(six) months from the date of the Collector's Award, whichever
period shall expire first.
10. This Court finds it relevant to take note of a judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others[2] which clearly explains the scope and
ambit of Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894. Paragraph Nos. 24 to
28 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein
under:
"24. When land is acquired and an award is made under Section 11 of the Act,
the Collector becomes entitled to take possession of the acquired land. The
award being only an offer on behalf of the Government, there is always a
tendency on the part of the Collector to be conservative in making the award,
which results in less than the market value being offered.
25. Invariably, the land-loser is required to make an application under Section
18 of the Act to get the market value as compensation. The land-loser does not
get a right to seek reference to the civil court unless the award is made. This
means that he can make an application seeking reference only when he knows
that an award has been made.
26.If the words six months from the "date of the Collector's award" should be
literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not the date of
knowledge of the award, it will lead to unjust and absurd results. For example,
the Collector may choose to make an award but not to issue any notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or oversight or due to any
Page No.# 9/27
ulterior reasons. Or he may send a notice but may not bother to ensure that it
is served on the landowner as required under Section 45 of the Act. If the
words "date of the Collector's award" are literally interpreted, the effect would
be that on the expiry of six months from the date of award, even though the
claimant had no notice of the award, he would lose the right to seek a
reference. That will lead to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between
those who are notified of the award and those who are not notified of the
award.
27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being violative of Article
14 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. To avoid such
consequences, the words "date of the Collector's award" occurring in proviso
(b) to Section 18 requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of
the essential contents of the award, and not the actual date of the Collector's
award.
28. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the
proviso to Section 18 of the Act:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his
authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks
from the date of the Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his
authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference
within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section
12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the
award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from
the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on
which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the
award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after
the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim
the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the
ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the
date of knowledge of the contents of the award."
Page No.# 10/27
(emphasis supplied upon the underlined
portion)
11. From a perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the above quoted
judgment, it would be seen that the Supreme Court had
observed that if the award is made in the presence of the person
interested or his authorized representative, the person interested
has to make the application within 6 (six) weeks from the date of
the Collector's award itself. In the case where the award is made
in absence of the person interested or his authorized
representative, the person interested has to make the application
seeking Reference within 6(six) weeks of receipt of the notice
from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. The
Supreme Court further observed that if the person interested or
his authorized representative was neither present when the
award was made nor received any notice under Section 12(2)
from the Collector, the person interested has to make an
application within 6 (six) months from the date on which he
actually or constructively comes to know about the contents of
the award.
The above aspect is very essential for the purpose of the
instant dispute on the ground that the learned Reference Court
did not bother to take note of whether the Appellants had
received any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 or
Page No.# 11/27
when the appellants had actual or constructive notice of the
contents of the Award. It is also very pertinent to observe that
there is huge difference between knowledge that an award is
passed and knowledge of the contents of the award.
The contents of the award is required to specify what is the
market value offered by the Collector; the amount of
compensation worked out on the basis of the market value of
the land; how much amount is paid towards solatium; how much
amount is paid on account of interest in terms with Section
23(1A) of the Act of 1894; how much interest to paid on the
awarded compensation in terms with Section 34 of the Act of
1894 if the possession is taken prior to passing of the award; the
person to whom the compensation is payable; the apportionment
of the compensation if there are more person interested as well
as the area of land which is acquired.
12. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of paragraph No.
31 of the said judgment, i.e. Bhagwan Das (supra), wherein the
Supreme Court explained, as to how actual or constructive
knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by
the Collector. Paragraph No. 31 being relevant is reproduced
herein under:
"31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be
Page No.# 12/27
established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received
or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in
pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had
acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on
oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the
acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the
revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector,
the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be
accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so."
13. The reason for reproducing the above paragraph is to show that
it is for the Collector who has to prove that a person interested
had received or drawn the compensation amount for the
acquired land or had attested the proceedings delivering
possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition
or had filed a case challenging the award or has acknowledged
the making of the award in any document or in a statement on
oath or evidence.
14. From the above analysis, it is clear how the period prescribed for
filling a written application is to be computed and the burden is
upon the Collector to ascertain and establish from which date the
period would run. The factors as well as the materials on the
basis of which the Collector can arrive at such conclusion as to
Page No.# 13/27
whether the application is filed within the period specified is duly
explained in Paragraph 31 of Bhagwan Das (Supra) as above
quoted. It is also relevant to observe that Section 18 of the Act
of 1894 do not stipulate that the written application is to be filed
before the Court. The said Section only stipulates that the
written application is required to be filed before the Collector
who would make a Reference to the Court. In the backdrop of
the above, let this Court consider whether the Reference Court
was justified to dismiss the Reference proceedings on the ground
that the application seeking Reference was beyond the period
prescribed in Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894.
15. Section 18 of the Act of 1894 upon being dissected would shows
that certain duties and responsibilities have been imposed upon
the District Collector by the Act of 1894 before making the
Reference. The duties and responsibilities are:
(i) To verify as to whether the person(s) who has/have filed the
written application is/are person interested. The term 'person
interested' is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894 to
include all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to
be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act of
1894 and includes a person, if he is interested in an easement
affecting the land.
Page No.# 14/27
(ii) The second aspect which the Collector is required to verify
before making a Reference is whether the person interested
had/have accepted the Award. In this regard, this Court finds it
relevant to take note of the first and second proviso to Section
31(2) of the Act of 1894 which is relevant when the Reference is
sought as regards the insufficiency of the compensation. The
first proviso stipulates that a person interested may receive such
payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. The
second proviso bars the person interested to make an application
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, if the person interested had
received the amount otherwise than under protest.
(iii) The third aspect is that the Collector can only make a Reference
to the Court in respect to the following objections raised in the
written application by the person interested who had not
accepted the award. The objections are:
(a) Objections to the measurement of the
land;
(b) Objections as regards the amount of
compensation or in other words the sufficiency of
the compensation;
(c) Objections as to the person to whom the
Page No.# 15/27
compensation is payable; and
(d) Objections as to the apportionment of the
compensation amongst the persons interested.
For the sake of clarity, it is observed that the Collector
without any written application has the power to make a
reference under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 only on the aspect
of the person entitled to compensation as well as the
apportionment thereof.
(iv) The fourth aspect is that the Collector before making a Reference
to the Court is required to verify, as to whether, the written
application filed by the person interested is within the time
stipulated in Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894. In doing so, the
Collector shall arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to when the
Applicant had actual and constructive notice of the contents of
the Award.
16. It is further relevant to observe that the Collector, after making
due verification and upon being satisfied is required to make the
Reference to the Court. It is apparent herein to take note of that
upon making the Reference to the Court, the Reference Court
gets the jurisdiction. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that
Section 19 of the Act of 1894 stipulates as to how the Reference
Page No.# 16/27
is required to be made. A perusal of Section 19 of the Act of
1894 would show that a Collector shall state, for the information
of the Court in writing under:
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees,
buildings or standing crops thereon;
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think are
interested in the said land;
(c) The amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under
Sections 5 and 17 or either of them, and the amount of
compensation awarded under Section 11;
(d) The amount paid or deposited under Sub-Section (3A) of Section
17; and
(e) If the objection be to the amount of compensation, the grounds
on which the amount of compensation was determined.
In addition to that, the Collector is also required to attach a
Schedule to the Order of making Reference giving the particulars
of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing
made or delivered by, the parties interested, respectively.
17. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that once a
Reference has been made by the Collector, it would be deemed
Page No.# 17/27
that the Collector is satisfied that the written application was
filed by a person interested; that the person interested had not
accepted the award and in respect to objection pertaining to
insufficiency of compensation, the person interested had not
either accepted the amount or had accepted the amount of
compensation under protest; that the objections raised are
permissible objections in terms with Section 18(1) of the Act of
1894 and that the written application so filed is within the period
prescribed.
18. Now therefore the question arises is when the learned Reference
Court gets the jurisdiction to decide the Reference on being
made by the Collector, can the learned Reference Court rule on
its own jurisdiction or in other words entertain a challenge to the
maintainability of the Reference proceedings?
19. As far back in the year 1929, the Privy Council in the case of Rai
Pramatua Nath Mallick Bahadur vs Secretary of State of India in Council[3]
dealt with the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when a reference is
made by the Collector in terms with Section 18 of the Act of
1894. The relevant portion of the Judgment is reproduced herein
below:
"The material section of the Act under which the references were made to the
Court is sec. 18, which is in the following terms:
"18.--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by
Page No.# 18/27
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by
the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be
to the measurement of land, the amount of the compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested."
The section clearly specifies four different grounds of objection, viz., (1) to the
measurement of the land; (2)
the amount of compensation; (3) to the persons to whom it is payable, and (4)
to the apportionment. The distinctions between objection to area and to
amount of compensation are also borne out by other sections of the Act; see
secs. 9, 11, 19(d), and 20(c). The Appellant's objection was manifestly only to
the amount of compensation and was correctly so described by the Collector in
making the references.
By sec. 20 the function of the Court upon a reference being made is "to
determine the objection" and only persons "interested in the objection" are to
be summoned before it, and by sec. 21 the scope of the inquiry is to be
"restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the
objection."
Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act
is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only
arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it
is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained
that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is
the "matter" referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider
anything beyond it.
For these reasons their Lordships are of opinion that the ruling of the Courts in
India was right, and that this appeal fails, and they will humbly advise His
Majesty that it should be dismissed. The Appellant must bear the costs of the
appeal."
20. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam
Nirman Sahkari Samiti LTD. Vs.Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and Another[4]
Page No.# 19/27
wherein the question arose before the Supreme Court, as to
whether, a Reference made under Section 30 of the Act of 1894
could have been converted to a proceeding under Section 18 of
the same Act. The Supreme Court in the said judgment placing
reliance in the above quoted judgment of the Privy Council in the
case of Rai Pramatua Nath Mallick Bahadur (supra) and other
judgments delineated the scope of the jurisdiction of the learned
Reference Court and categorically observed that the learned
Reference Court have got the jurisdiction and authority only to
decide the objection referred to it, i.e. the objections as
mentioned in Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894. Paragraph No. 7
of the said judgment is reproduced herein under.
"7. It is well established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the
matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition
Officer and that the 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. This
question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest
decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. of
State. This was a case where the claimant sought a reference under Section 18
of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only
regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the
measurements of the land given in the award. Before the Reference Court, the
claimant raised objection regarding the measurements of the land and sought
for fresh measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High
Court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the
Page No.# 20/27
claimant raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court
rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thus:
`"Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the courts
`under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of
`these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been `taken
`to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration `of that
`objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only `objection
`taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the `'matter'
`referred, and the court has no power to determine or `consider
`anything beyond it."
21. This Court further finds it relevant to refer to another judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry[5].
This Judgment is relevant to understand that the Act of 1894 is a
complete Code by itself and therefore the Civil Court to whom
the reference is made is strictly bound to decide the reference
made and nothing else. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is
referred to herein below:
"19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to
those whose lands have been acquired but also to 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. His jurisdiction is to
determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under
the award made by the Collector. It is not within his domain to entertain any
application of pro interesse suo or in the nature thereof."
22. From the above analysis, it can be culled out that the order of
Reference made to the Court by the Collector confers the
Page No.# 21/27
jurisdiction upon the Reference Court to decide the objection(s)
in respect to which the Reference had been made. The
Reference Court, unlike an Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 have not been conferred with the
power to Rule on its own jurisdiction or in other words entertain
a challenge to the maintainability of the Reference. Rather, the
Act of 1894 constricts the jurisdiction of the learned Reference
Court to decide only on the consideration of the interests of the
person affected by the objection and nothing more as would be
seen from Section 21 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the
jurisdiction of the learned Reference Court, though a Civil Court,
is confined to decide within the four corners of the authority
conferred by the Act of 1894 i.e. answer the Reference so made
by the Collector and pass the Award in terms with Section 26 of
the Act of 1894.
In the instant Reference proceedings, the objection referred
to the learned Reference Court by the District Collector was as
regards insufficiency of the compensation. The learned
Reference Court therefore was obligated to answer the Reference
as to whether the amount adjudged as compensation is just, fair
and reasonable as per the Act of 1894 and if not, what would be
the just, fair and reasonable compensation.
Page No.# 22/27
23. At this stage, this Court however finds it apposite to mention
that the maintainability of the Reference, so made or a challenge
to the act of the Collector not to make a Reference having not
been provided under the Act of 1894, the remedy available to
the person interested is to invoke the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
question whether the written application was submitted by the
person interested beyond the time permitted under Section 18(2)
of the Act of 1894 is outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the
learned Reference Court.
25. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take up the
impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the
learned Reference Court. From a perusal of the said impugned
judgment and order dated 25.08.2023, it transpires that the
learned Reference Court had exercised its jurisdiction in the
manner in which a Civil Court decides a suit in exercise of its
jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This very
aspect of the matter can be seen from the manner in which the
various issues were framed. In the opinion of this Court, the sole
point for determination, in the present context, ought to have
been "Whether the compensation awarded to the Applicants
Page No.# 23/27
were fair and reasonable and if not, what would be the fair and
reasonable compensation?"
26. The framing of the Issue No. 1 as to the maintainability of the
Reference proceeding was not necessary at all.
27. Consequently, the first point of determination is decided holding
inter alia that the learned Reference Court was not justified in
dismissing the Reference proceedings on the ground that it was
barred under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894.
28. Now let this Court take up the second point for determination
formulated above, as to whether, the Reference Court could have
dismissed the Reference proceedings for not arraying the
Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the
Government of Assam as a party to the Reference proceedings.
At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Section
20 of the Act of 1894, which is reproduced herein under.
"20. Service of notice.- The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying
the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and
directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the
following persons, namely:-
(a) the applicant;
(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if
any) of them as have consented without protest to receive
payment of the compensation awarded; and
Page No.# 24/27
(c) in the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to
the amount of the compensation, the Collector."
29. From a combined reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act of
1894, it would be seen that first the person interested who have
not accepted the award is required to submit a written
application objecting to the award on the four objections
available under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894. When such
written application is being filed, the Collector is required to
make verification of the said written application in the manner
clearly delineated in paragraph No. 15 supra. After making the
verification and being satisfied, the Collector is required to make
the Reference in the manner clearly stipulated in Section 19 of
the Act of 1894 to the Court by providing the various
information. The moment the Reference is made by the Collector
and reaches the Court, the learned Reference Court, after
making necessary registration of the said proceedings as per its
rules and orders, is required to issue notice specifying the date
on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection and
directing the appearance of the parties before the Court on that
day. The notices are to be sent to the following:
(i) The applicant, i.e. the person who had submitted the written
application seeking Reference;
Page No.# 25/27
(ii) To all persons interested in the objection except those persons
who have consented without protest to receive the payment of
the compensation awarded.
(iii) When the case pertains to objection in regard to the area of the
land or to the amount of compensation, the Collector is required
to be issued notice.
30. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neyvely Lignite
Corporation LTD. (supra), categorically mandates that the beneficiary
of the acquisition proceeding would be person interested.
Therefore, when the Act of 1894 casts a duty upon the learned
Reference Court to issue notice to the persons interested, the
question of dismissing the Reference proceeding on the ground
that the beneficiary have been not made a party by the
applicant, i.e. the person who filed the written application is a
complete misconceived notion of the provisions of the Act of
1894.
31. In view of the above analysis of the above two points for
determination, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Reference Court had not decided the objection which was
referred to the learned Reference Court to decide. In other
words, the learned Reference Court did not exercise the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and rather exceeded its
Page No.# 26/27
jurisdiction in dismissing the Reference proceedings on grounds
not relevant in law.
32. Considering the above, this Court is required to set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2023. The Reference
proceedings are also required to be remanded back to the
learned Reference Court for a decision afresh on merits on the
Objection as regards the insufficiency of the compensation.
33. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:
(i) The judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the
learned Reference Court is set aside and quashed.
(ii) This Court remands the Reference proceeding back to the
learned Reference Court for a decision on merits on the question
of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation and to what
relief the person interested is/are entitled to and for that
purpose, this Court restores the L.A. Case No. 109/2017 which
arises out of L.A. Case No. 1/2005-2006, Award No. 36 to the
file of the learned Reference Court.
(iii) Taking into account that this Court has remanded the matter
back to the learned Reference Court i.e. the Court of the learned
Additional District Judge, Dhubri, this Court directs in exercise of
Page No.# 27/27
the powers under Order XLI Rule 26A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for both the parties to appear before the
learned Reference Court on 23.04.2025 for further proceedings
of the Reference proceeding.
[1](1995) 1 SCC 221
[2](2010) 3 SCC 545
[3]AIR 1930 PC 64
[4](2003) 5 SCC 561
[5](2006) 12 SCC 300
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
