SMT. AMBEY DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

                            SMT. AMBEY DEVI                                      A
                                       v.
                      STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

                              MARCH 12, 1996

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)                               B

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 12, 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, and
53.

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order I Rule 10.
                                                                                 c
       Land acquisition-Compensation-Enhancement claimed by co-sharer
wit/tout seeking reference-Permissibility of-Claimant a co-sharer laying
claim for I/4th share of compensation--Award-Apportionmelll of compen-
sation into 114 by each co-owner-Compensation received by parties-Refer-
ence by one of the parties-Enhancement of compensation by Reference D
Cowt-Claim by co-sharer for enhanced compensation at par with other
claimants as gramed by Reference Court without making any reference ap-
plication-Held not permissib/e--Reference application by one co-harer can-
not be treated as one by all co-sharers-f'ower of Civil Court to enhance
compensation-A valid reference is condition precedent for exercise of E
powe,-Procedure prescribed under Sections 18 and 30 of Act being inconsis-
tent with Order I Rule 10-a co-owner cannot be impleaded as a necessary
party in the absence of a referenc.r&ction 53 of the Act held inapplicable
to· the facts of the case.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICilON : Civil appeal No. 2166 of                  F
1980.

     From the Judgment Order dated 21.9.76 of the Patna High Court in
Appeal from Original Decree No. 281 of 1967.

    S.N. Misra, Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Manish Verma and Abhilekh                 G
Verma for the Appellant.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

     This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Patna High Court made in Appeal from Original Decree No.            H
                                   303
    304                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1996) 3 S.C.R.

A 220 and 221 of 1957 dated September 21, 1976. The only question that
    arises in this appeal is : whether one of the co-sharers can claim enhance-
    ment of the compensation without seeking reference under Section 18 of
    Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') in a reference
    at the instance of one of the co-sharers.

B       The admitted facts are that 25 acres of land being a portion of Plot
  No. 400 of Kha ta No. 92 in village Behca in Shah bad District (renamed
  Bhojpur) was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Act for public purpose.
  Publication of the notification under Section 4(1) was made on September
  14, 1957. In the enquiry under Section 11 made by the land Acquisition
C Officer the apellant had laid her claim for l/4th share of the compensation
  along with other co-owners. It is also found as a fact that in the award
  made by the Collector, he apportioned the compensation into IJ4th share
  to each of the co-owners the compensation was received by the respective
  parties, one of co-owners sought for reference to the Civil Court under
D Section 18 which was made. The Court had enhanced the compensation.
  Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal claiming enhancement of the.
  compensation in respect of her land on par with other co-owner. That
  claim was rejected by the High Court holding that the appellant has not ·
  made any application under Section 18 after the award was made by the
  Coliector on January 6, 1958 and, therefore, she is not entitled to the
E enhanced compensation. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

        The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Section
  53 of the Act, the procedure prescribed under CPC is applicable to the
  proceedings of the Civil Court unless they are inconsistent with any of the
F provisions contained in the Act. Since Order 1, Rule 10 CPC requires
  impleadment of all necessary and proper parties, the appeliant being a
  necessary party to the proceedings, she is entitled to the same compensa-
  tion as was awarded to the other claimants. We find no force in the
  contention. The scheme of the Act is inconsistent with CPC regarding the
  entitlement to claim compensation under the Act. The CPC provides only
G the procedural format to adjudicate the dispute. After the award was made
  under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer was required to issue notice
  under Section 12 to the parties. As contemplated under Section 30 of the
  Act, the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation either under
  protest or without protest. When the compensation is received under
H protest under sub-section (1) of Section 18, the application in writing has
                                        AMBEYDEVlv. STATE                                 305

               to be made within the limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) to the            A
• _,,t' --~
               Land Acquisition Officer objecting to either extent of the land, classifica-
               tion, value of the land or apportionment of the compensation and upon
               receipt thereof reference to Court would be made. Thereunder the ap-
               plicanr shall be required to state the grounds on which be/she objects to
               the compensation etc. Valid reference is a pre-condition for the civil Court
               to adjudicate the objections raised in the reference application. In this case,
                                                                                                 B
               it is found by the High Court that the appellant had not made any
               application under Section 18(1). The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
               determine higher compensation, as laid down under Section 23 of the Act,
  ~,~
              .would arise only when a valid reference bas been made under Section 18
               within the prescribed limitation. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded        c
               on a valid reference and then the Civil Court gets jurisdiction to determine
               the compensation on the basis of the objections raised by the claimant.

                     We accept the finding of the High Court that the appellant bad not
              made any application under Section 18, though the appellant has asserted           D
              that she did make an application but no evidence has been placed before
   ·~
   •    .     the High Court or in this Court. Thus, is difficult to accept that such an
              application was in fact made before the Land Acquisition Officer within
              the limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we
              hold that the appellant had not filed any application, as required under
              Section 18(1) read with Section 18(2) of the Act. Section 53 does not apply        E
              to the facts of the case. The procedure prescribed under Section 18 and
              30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10
              CPC. Order 1, Rule 10 CPC would apply to implead a necessary or proper
              party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen
  '~          between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the                F
              decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has
              been prescribed under the Act. As held earlier, making an application in
              writing under sub-section ( l) and within the limitation prescribed under-
              sub-section (2) of Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Ac-
              quisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18; only on its receipt,
              under Section 20 Civil Court jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to        G
 ·~
              conduct enquiry, as contemplated under the Act. At that stage, the proce-
              dure of trial etc., as contemplated under the CPC, would apply and Section
              53 of the Act would become applicable. It is an admitted position that the
              co-owner filed an application and had sought reference under Section 18
              in respect of his share only. So, it is, as a fact, claims for compensation in     H
   306                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1996) 3 S.C.R.

A specie and was paid towards 1/4th share to the claimants. 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-shares. Accordingly,
  we hold that the appellant is not entitled to lay any higher compensation
  pursuant to an award made by the reference Court under Section 26 at the
B instance of one of the co-owners.
             The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without
    costs.

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                    '.