BALRAM CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

A                             BALRAM CHANDRA
                                         v.
                                 STATE OF U.P.

                                 APRIL 24, 1995

B
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), 6 11, 18, 20, 23 and 26.
    Land Acquisition-Notification under section 4(1}-Declaration under sec-         \...
    tion 6---Power to declare null and void, held Reference Court has no such
c   power.

           In land acquisition proceedings of this case the reference court
    declared that the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declara-
    tion issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were null and
D   void. Ou appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the reference Court
    holding that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the notifica-
    tion and the declaration null and void.

          In this Court it was contended for the petitioner that as the notilica-
E tion under s.4(1) did not contain the particulars required thereunder the
    District Judge was unable to proceed with the determination of the com-
    pensation and consequently he was within his power to declare the notifica-
    tion and declaration as not valid in law though it may be wrong to say that
    they are null and void.

F         Dismissing the petition, this Court

        HELD : 1.1. The reference Court cannot go behind the reference and
  give a declaration that the notification under section 4(1) and declaration
  under section 6 are null and void or illegal. The duty and power of the
G Reference Court is confined vis-a-vis the provisions contained under sec-
  tions 11, 18 and 20 to 23 and it can not traverse beyond its power. The
  High Court was, therefore, right in its conclusion that the District Court
  has committed grievous error of law in declaring the notification under
  section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 to be null and void and
H inoperative. (728-D, El
                                        726
                  BALRAM CHANDRA v. STATE OF U.P.                        727

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)                   A
No. 9056 of 1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in F.A. No. 211 of 1989.

      Sunil Gupta, Pratap Venugopal and K.J. John for the Petitioner.           B
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

       Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published
in the State Gazette on October 19,1957 followed by a declaration under         C
s.6 published on November 6, 1957. The possession was taken on Decem-
ber 7, 1957. The Collector made his award on September 29, 1958. The
petitioner sought for reference under s.18 and the Collector referred the
matter on November 8, 1986. The District Judge in his award dated
December 16, 1985 declared the notification under s.4(1) and the declara-
tion under s.6 to be null and void. Against that, an appeal was filed before    D
the High Court under s.54. By the judgment and order dated October 31,
1994, the Division Bench has set aside the order holding that the District
Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the notification under s.4(1) to be void
Thus, this SLP.

      Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his     E
usual vehemence, contended that the notification. under s.4(1) did not
contain the particulars required thereunder and the District Judge was
unable to proceed with the determination of the compensation pursuant to
the reference under s.18. Therefore, the District Judge was within his
power to declare the notification and declaration as not valid in law though    F
it may be wrong to say that they are null and void. We find no force in the
contention.

      The Collector after making enquiry and passing the award, is re-
quired under s.11 to consider the questions of: (i) the true area of the land
required for determination of the compensation; (ii) the compensation           G
which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the appor-
tionment of the compensation among all the persons known or believed to
be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information,
whether or not they have respectively interested in receiving the compen-
sation. On determination of such of these questions and making the award        H
    7253                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A   under s.11, the claimants, on receipt of notice, are entitled to receive it on
    protest and to make an application under s.18 of the Act with objections
    to the extent of the nature of the land, or the amount awarded or the
    persons entitled to receive compensation. When such an application within
    the limit prescribed under the proviso to ·s.18 is made, the Collector is
    required, under s.19 of the Act, to refer the objections with a statement
B   with regard to the objections raised, to the Civil Court. Thereon, under s.20
    of the Act, the reference Court is enjoined to give notice not only to the
    claimants but also to the Collector and persons interested in the land and
    the. Court is required to go into the objections raised.

C         Thus, it could be seen that the District Judge is enjoined to go into
    the objections raised by the claimants in making enquiry under s.20 and to
    pass award under s.26 of the Act with reference to the objections raised
    by the claimants in respect of the area of the land or the amount of
    compensation. It is, therefore, be clear that the reference Court cannot go
    behind the reference and give a declaration that the notification under
D   s.4(1) and declaration under· s.6 are null and void or illegal. Ris duty and
    power are confined vis-a-vis the provisions contained under ss.11, 18 and
    20 to 23 and he would not traverse beyond his power.

           The High Court was, therefore, right in its conclusion that the
E District Court has committed grievous error of law in declaring the
    notification under s.4(1) and declaration unders 6 to be null and void and
    inoperative. We do not find any ground warranting interference. The SLP
    is dismissed accordingly.

    T.N.A.                                                    Petition dismissed.