1955 (10) TMI 47 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of evidence to substantiate the claim as 'shikmidar'.
2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to determine the nature of the dispute.
3. Scope of the Court's inquiry under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Validity of multiple references made by the Collector.
5. Appropriate forum for hearing the references.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Evidence to Substantiate the Claim as 'Shikmidar':
The petitioner sought to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim as 'shikmidar' in the land under reference. The District Judge disallowed this on the basis that the petitioner did not specifically mention 'shikmidar' in his initial objection filed on 29-10-54. The judgment emphasized that even though the term 'shikmidar' was not used, the petitioner had clearly stated he was in cultivating possession of the land for 60 or 65 years on payment of rent. Thus, the omission of the word 'shikmidar' did not negate the legal status claimed by the petitioner.

2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to Determine the Nature of the Dispute:
The District Judge based his decision on the initial objection petition and concluded that the petitioner had abandoned his claim as 'shikmidar'. The judgment clarified that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act is strictly limited to the matters referred by the Collector. The Court cannot go behind the reference to determine the nature of the dispute. The District Judge erred by looking into the initial objection petition instead of confining his inquiry to the reference made by the Collector.

3. Scope of the Court's Inquiry under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The judgment elaborated on the scope of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 18 allows for a broader range of objections, including the amount of compensation and the persons to whom it is payable. Section 30 is limited to disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation or the persons entitled to it. The Court's inquiry is confined to the matters referred by the Collector, and it cannot consider anything beyond those matters. The District Judge should have restricted his inquiry to the 'shikmi' right of the petitioner as mentioned in the reference.

4. Validity of Multiple References Made by the Collector:
The Collector made three references in the same Land Acquisition case, which were numbered as Land Acquisition References No. 119, 136, and 370 of 1955. The judgment noted that one reference was sufficient, but even if two were made, a third was unnecessary. However, since three references were made, they should be heard together by the District Judge to avoid any confusion or duplication.

5. Appropriate Forum for Hearing the References:
The petitioner requested that the case be transferred to an Additional District Judge, as the District Judge had already expressed an opinion on the merits of the dispute. The judgment agreed that the ends of justice would be better served if the references were heard by an Additional District Judge. It was directed that the three references be remitted to Mr. S. M. Hasan, Additional District Judge, Patna, for disposal in accordance with law. The Additional District Judge would then decide the existence or non-existence of the 'shikmi' right of the petitioner after giving both parties full opportunity to adduce evidence.

Conclusion:
The order dated 29-6-55 by the District Judge was set aside, and the subsequent orders were automatically vacated. The case was remitted to Mr. S. M. Hasan, Additional District Judge, Patna, for disposal. The application was allowed with costs, and the hearing fee was set at Rs. 32/-.