Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents owned 0.12 acre of land in village Bermo No. 18, district Hazaribagh. The land was required for construction of an Aerial Rope-way for Bokaro Thermal Power Plant. A declaration under Section 4 was made on August 9, 1952. The property comprised a main building, outhouses, and open space. The government acquired a strip 50 feet wide for electric wires, including part of the open space and the outhouses. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 4,451/5/6 for the land and outhouses acquired. Not satisfied, the respondents applied for reference under Section 18. In their petition, they claimed that other contiguous lands and buildings not acquired had suffered huge loss; the rope-line passing close made the remaining property dangerous for habitation. They claimed Rs. 21,765/8/- spent on the main building and loss of monthly rent of Rs. 160. The Deputy Commissioner made the reference. The District Judge considered the matter and, while affirming the acquisition compensation, awarded an additional Rs. 1,000 for the adverse effect on the unacquired property. The respondents then preferred an appeal to the Patna High Court under Section 54, urging that the rope-way had completely spoiled the main building and that the Land Acquisition Officer should acquire the main building along with the outhouses. The core legal question was whether a claim under Section 49 of the Act for acquisition of the entire house could be raised in an appeal arising from a reference under Section 18, especially when no application under Section 49 had been made before the award. The appellants (State of Bihar and Deputy Commissioner) contended that the plea was foreign to the scope of Section 18 reference and had not been raised earlier. The respondents argued that their petition for reference contained a claim under Section 23 which showed they were seeking protection under Section 49, and that respondent No.1 had made an application on October 22, 1952 under Section 49. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 18 and Section 49. It held that a reference under Section 18 is limited to the grounds specified in that section, and a claim under Section 49 for acquisition of the whole house must be made before the award. The Court noted that the respondents' petition under Section 18 was actually a claim for additional compensation under Section 23(3), not a Section 49 demand. The alleged application under Section 49 was not produced, and the District Judge did not accept it. The Court referred to Pramatha Nath Mullick and other cases to distinguish the procedural requirements. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order directing acquisition of the remaining property, and restored the District Judge's order awarding additional Rs. 1,000. The Court held that the High Court erred in allowing Section 49 to be invoked in an appeal from a Section 18 reference.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Scope of Reference - Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court hearing a reference under Section 18(1) is confined to objections specified in that provision and cannot entertain a plea under Section 49 for acquisition of the whole house. The respondent's claim for additional compensation for loss to unacquired property was considered under Section 23(3), not Section 49. Held that High Court erred in allowing Section 49 to be invoked in appeal from Section 18 reference. B) Land Acquisition - Claim for Severance/Injurious Affection - Section 23(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A landowner may claim additional compensation for damage caused to other land or property by acquisition. The respondent's petition for reference raised this ground, and the District Judge awarded Rs.1,000 for diminished utility. Held that the High Court mischaracterized this claim as a Section 49 demand. C) Land Acquisition - Procedure Under Section 49 - Section 49 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - For acquisition of the whole house, the owner must express desire before the award; otherwise, the right is lost. The respondent's alleged application of 22-10-1952 was not proved, and no application was produced. Held that Section 49 procedure was not followed, and the High Court could not direct acquisition of the remaining property. D) Land Acquisition - Appellate Jurisdiction - Sections 18, 54 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeal under Section 54 is confined to subject matter of reference; new pleas cannot be raised for first time in appeal. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Land Acquisition Officer to take over the remaining area and building. Held that Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction. E) Land Acquisition - Precedents on Section 49 Procedure - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18, 49 - Court reviewed Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Secretary of State for India in Council, (1929) L.R. 57 I.A. 100; The Secretary of State for India in Council v. R. Narayanaswami Chettiar, (1931) I.L.R. 55 Mad. 391; Krishna Das Roy v. The Land Acquisition Collector of Pabna, (1911) 16 C.W.N. 327 - These cases clarified that Section 49 procedure is distinct and separate from Section 18 reference and must be strictly followed before award. Held that the High Court misapplied the law.
Issue of Consideration
Whether in an appeal arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the owner can claim that the Land Acquisition Officer should acquire the remaining contiguous building under Section 49 of the Act, when no prior application under Section 49 was made before the award.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's direction, and restored the District Judge's order awarding additional Rs.1,000. Held that Section 49 could not be invoked in appeal from Section 18 reference; respondents had not made a valid application under Section 49 before the award.
Law Points
- Scope of reference under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act is limited to objections specified therein
- Section 49 procedure for acquisition of whole house must be invoked before award
- Claim for additional compensation for damage to unacquired property is under Section 23(3) not Section 49
- High Court cannot allow new plea under Section 49 in appeal from Section 18 reference
