1996 (3) TMI 470 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether one of the co-sharers can claim enhancement of the compensation without seeking reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a reference at the instance of one of the cosharers? Held that - Appeal dismiised. 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. Thus 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.

Summary

Issues:
Whether one of the co-sharers can claim enhancement of compensation without seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the entitlement of a co-sharer to claim enhancement of compensation without following the procedure under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant, one of the co-owners of the acquired land, sought enhancement of compensation after the Collector's award was made. The High Court rejected the claim, stating that the appellant did not make any application under Section 18 following the award. The appellant argued that she should be entitled to the same compensation as other claimants under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC. However, the Supreme Court found that the procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act are inconsistent with the CPC. The Act mandates specific steps to be followed post-award, including making a written application under Section 18(1) within the prescribed limitation. The Court emphasized that a valid reference under Section 18 is a pre-condition for the civil court to determine higher compensation. In this case, it was established that the appellant did not fulfill the requirements of Section 18, and thus, her claim for enhancement was dismissed.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellant failed to submit an application under Section 18 within the specified time frame. Despite the appellant's assertion that she had made such an application, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Court reiterated that compliance with Section 18(1) and (2) is crucial for initiating the reference process and granting jurisdiction to the civil court. The Court clarified that Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC does not apply in this scenario due to the Act's distinct procedural framework. It was emphasized that the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine compensation is contingent upon a valid reference being made under Section 18. As the appellant did not meet the statutory requirements, her appeal for enhanced compensation was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant's failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 18 precluded her from claiming enhancement of compensation. The Court emphasized the significance of a valid reference under the Land Acquisition Act for the civil court to adjudicate compensation disputes. The judgment underscored the specific steps outlined in the Act post-award, highlighting that compliance with Section 18 is essential for seeking higher compensation. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to enhanced compensation without following the prescribed statutory procedure.