9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Land acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Jurisdiction of Civil Court in entertaining suit for compensation; Compliance with procedures under Sections 18 to 20 of the Act.
Summary: 1. The Supreme Court considered a case where land in District Aizawl was acquired for Assam Rifles' accommodation u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent received compensation under protest but no reference was made to Civil Court u/s 18 of the Act. 2. The respondent filed a Civil Suit for compensation, which was challenged by the appellant citing lack of jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the decree, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. The appellant argued that a specific reference u/s 18 was necessary when compensation was received under protest. However, the respondent contended that the Deputy Commissioner's referral to the Civil Court was akin to a reference u/s 18. 4. The Court emphasized the importance of following the Act's procedures, stating that a valid reference u/s 18 is essential for the Civil Court to have jurisdiction. The Collector's failure to make a reference was highlighted. 5. It was clarified that the Civil Court cannot entertain objections for higher compensation without compliance with procedures u/s 18 to 20 and 31. The High Court and Civil Court's decisions were deemed erroneous. 6. The Supreme Court set aside the previous judgments, directing the Collector to make a reference to the Civil Court based on the respondent's application. The Civil Court was instructed to expedite the matter, and the appeal was allowed without costs.
|
