N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th March 1960 of the learned Joint Judge Ahmedabad. The learned Judge was deciding by that judgment two compensation cases numbers 8 and 154 of 1958 which were heard by him together. By the above order the learned Judge awarded the claimant in compensation case No. 8 of 1958 an additional amount of Rs. 2741. 50 (including solatium) and the claimant in compensation case No. 154/58 an additional amount of Rs. 1780. 50 (including solatium ). Both the claimants have come in appeal. First Appeal No. 1033/60 is by the claimant in compensation case No. 8/1958 and First Appeal No. 1028/60 is by the Claimant in compensation case No. 154/5s. Both these appeals have been argued together as the evidence in respect of both the cases was led in the lower Court only in one case namely compensation case No. 8/58 and both these appeals will therefore be disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE lands acquired in both the cases are sub plots of final plot No. 106 of Maninagar Town Planning Scheme No. 4. They were acquired for the extension of Lallubhai Hospital at Maninagar. The notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act) was issued in respect of both the cases on 7 Final plot No. 106 of Maninagar Town Planning Scheme of which the 1ands acquired from sub plots is a fairly largo final plot as shown by the sketch Ex. 36 and is divided into many sub plots. Of these the sub plots which are acquired are sub plot No. 43 which we the subject matter of compensation case No 8/58 (First Appeal No. 1033/60) and sub points Nos. 132 and 143 which were the subject matter of compensation case No. 154/58 (First Appeal No. 1028/60 ). The sub plot No. 43 measures 7278 sq. yards but has been stated in the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer as measuring 1580 sq. yards. On this difference a point of law arises to which we shall refer later. Sub plots Nos. 132 and 133 measure 753 and 799 sq. yards respectively in all 1552 sq. yards. The sub plot No. 43 measures 7278 sq. yards but has been stated in the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer as measuring 1580 sq. yards. On this difference a point of law arises to which we shall refer later. Sub plots Nos. 132 and 133 measure 753 and 799 sq. yards respectively in all 1552 sq. yards. Before the Special Land Acquisition officer the claimants in both the cases claimed compensation be these lands at the rate of Rs. 10. 00per sq. yard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4. 00per sq. yard for sub plot No. 43 and Rs. 5. 50 per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133. The claimants sought Reference to the District Court under sec. 18 of the Act in respect of the amount of compensation so awarded. The claim made before the District Court was also at the rate of Rs. 101 _ per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133 and at the rate of Rs. 8/for rub plot No. 43 The learned point Judge who decided the cases awarded by his judgment and order above mentioned a rate of Rs. 4. 50 per sq. yard for sub plot No. 43 and sq. 6-50 per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133. There was a corresponding award for the statutory solatium. In respect of sub plot No. 43 the lower Court made a further order in respect of its area. In the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer the area of this sub plot is mentioned as 7580 sq. yards. The lower Court found that it was in fact 7278 sq yards that is 302 sq. yards less. Therefore out of the additional amount of compensation awarded by the lower Court that Court deducted the amount in respect of 302 sq. yards which in its view had been wrongly awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Claimant of sub plot No. 43. Against these orders of the lower Court the claimants have come in appeal. ( 3 ) AT the hearing of these appeals Mr. S. K. Zaveri the learned advocate who argued the appeals on behalf of the claimants made only two submissions. Against these orders of the lower Court the claimants have come in appeal. ( 3 ) AT the hearing of these appeals Mr. S. K. Zaveri the learned advocate who argued the appeals on behalf of the claimants made only two submissions. One submission was that the lower Court committed an error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in inquiring into the area of sub plot No. 43 under acquisition and determining it to be less than the area determined by the Special Lan Equation Acquisition Officer. The other was that the lower Court was in error in not relying on the instances relating So the market value proved before it and in not awarding to the claimants a rate of at least Rs. 7. 00in respect of sub plot No. 43 and Rs. 8-50 paise in respect of sub plots Nos. 132 and 133. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the first submission since relevant facts needs be stated The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 30-10-1957. In para 3 of that award which is at Ex. 2 he has mentioned the actual area of the lands under acquisition as verified by the District Inspector of Land Records Ahmedabad. In respect of the areas of sub plot No. 6 under acquisition the area stated is 7580 sq. yards. In the last para of that award which sets out what he declares to be the award he states that the true area of the lands under acquisition in stared thereunder and under it the land of sub plot No. 43 under acquisition is stated to be 7580 sq. yards. Thereafter the amount of compensation in set out at the rate of Rs. 4/per sq. yard in respect of sub plot No. 43 and the amount awarded in on the basis that the area under acquisition is 7580 sq. yard. The claimants sought a Reference. In that Reference they asked for higher compensation. The Collector in submitting his statement under 80 19 of the Act to the Court has given the extent of the land as 7580 sq. yards (Ex. 5 ). This statement was submitted on 31-12-1957. After the statement was submitted in respect of sub plot No. 43 the claimants filed a statement for claim which in at Ex. 12 and therein they claimed for the lands under acquisition a higher rate of compensation atleast Rs. 8/per sq. yards (Ex. 5 ). This statement was submitted on 31-12-1957. After the statement was submitted in respect of sub plot No. 43 the claimants filed a statement for claim which in at Ex. 12 and therein they claimed for the lands under acquisition a higher rate of compensation atleast Rs. 8/per sq. yard. There was no statement filed by the Special Laud Acquisition Officer. It appears that while this case was pending before the lower Court a sketch was prepared on 16g-1958 jointly by the representative of the acquiring department and the revenue surveyor. In the statement attached to that sketch which is Ex. 38 the and under acquisition from sub plot No. 43 is stated to be 7z78 sq. yards. This was the first indication that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was taking a different stand from the a card in respect of the true area under acquisition. This sketch with the attached statement was produced in the Court for the first time on 24-11-1959 by a list Max. 23. The claimants advocate by an endorsement thereon dated 4-3-1960 stated that there was no objection to the sketch being exhibited. On that very day oral evidence appears to have commenced in the lower Court. The claimant Parmanand Maneklal (Ex. 35) who is concerned with that sub plot was examine on that day and in cross-examination he was asked about this joint measurement and he stated that he did not dispute the fact that on a joint measurement the area of the land was found to be 7278 sq. yards. On these facts the lower Court has stated in its judgment (para 3) as under:-ALTHOUGH under the Land Acquisition Officers award compensation for sub plot No. 43 part is awarded on the basic of its area being 7580 sq. yards the map and the joint measurement report at Ex. 38 show that the true area of that plot which has been acquired for the project in question is only 7278 sq. yards and is position is not challenged by claimant Parmanand in the course of has evidence at Ex. 35and then after the learned Judge increased the rate of market value An respect of this sub plot from Rs. 4/to Rs. 4. 50 paise the total amount of compensation was determined on the basis of its being 7218 sq. yds. yards and is position is not challenged by claimant Parmanand in the course of has evidence at Ex. 35and then after the learned Judge increased the rate of market value An respect of this sub plot from Rs. 4/to Rs. 4. 50 paise the total amount of compensation was determined on the basis of its being 7218 sq. yds. and adjustment in respect of the amount payable was made on that basis. Now Mr. Zaveri states that in view of the admissions of the claimant before the lower Court it was not possible for him to urge that the acquired area was in fact 7580 sq. yds. and not 7278 sq. yds. as stated by the lower Court but he urged that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the question of area and to hold that the area was less than that mentioned in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In doing so the lower Court according to him was acting in excess of jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE submissions of Mr. Zaveri on this point are these. The District Court when deciding the case on a Reference under sec. 18 of the Act was acting as a Court of special jurisdiction. As such Court its powers and duties are those defined by the statute under which it exercises those powers and it has no inherent powers independent of the provisions of that statute. Under the provisions of the Act an award of the Land Acquisition Officer as to area is final unless challenged by the person interested. The Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Government are not persons interested and cannot therefore challenge that part of the award. If so the scope of the inquiry before the lower Court is limited to what is objected to in the application for a Reference. The question of area of the land under acquisition does not arise for inquiry on the Reference made in this case and therefore the Court cannot go into that question and must proceed on the basis that the area of the land under acquisition was the area set out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award. ( 6 ) IN support of these submissions Mr. ( 6 ) IN support of these submissions Mr. Zaveri has invited our attention to three authorities but before we consider these authorities it would be convenient to examine these submissions in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act. The notification under sec. 4 of the Act was issued as we have earlier stated on 7-12-1955. The declaration under sec. 6 of the Act was made all 19-12-1955 as stated in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and in the statement sent to the Court by the Collector under sec. 19. After the declaration the Collector was directed under sec 7 to take order for the acquisition of the land. In this case it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was appointed the Collector under sec. 3 clause (c) of the Act. Sec. 8 of the Act provides that the Collector shall thereupon cause the land to be marked out. He shall also cause it to be measured and if no plan has been made thereof a plan to be made of the same. Therefore this section imposes on the Collector here the Special Land Acquisition Officer the duty to cause the land to be marked out and measured. It must be assumed that this was done. Sec. 9 provides for issue of a public notice so that the claims to compensation by persons interested in the land to be acquired may be made to the Collector. Sub-sec. (2) of that section sets out what matters the claimants are entitled to place before the Collector and one of the matters is their objections (if any) to the measurements made under sec. 8. We do not have before as any material as to. what was the measurement found under sec. 8 and whether any objection as to the measurement was made under sec. 9 by the claimants. But we have here the fact that in the award that was made under sec. 11 the true area of the land under acquisition so far as concerns sub plot No. 43 is stated to be 7580 sq. yds. Sec 11 requires the Collector to hold an inquiry into the objections if any which any person interested has stated pursuant to the notice given under sec. 9 to the measurements made under sec. 11 the true area of the land under acquisition so far as concerns sub plot No. 43 is stated to be 7580 sq. yds. Sec 11 requires the Collector to hold an inquiry into the objections if any which any person interested has stated pursuant to the notice given under sec. 9 to the measurements made under sec. 8 and to the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sec. 4 and into the respective interest of the persons claiming compensation. Sec. 11 further requires him to make an award under his hand of:- (I) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said 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 appeared before him. Therefore the Collector is required under sec. 11 to make an award of the true area of the land and in the present case his award in respect of the true area of the land was that it was 7580 sq. yds. Now sec. 12 provides so far as material that such award shall except as hereinafter provided be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested of the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Therefore so far as the true area of the land with which we are concerned the award is final between the Collector and the persons interested except as hereinafter provided. That provision is sec. 18. That section entitles any person interested who has not accepted the award to require by a written application to the Collector that the matter be referred to the Court by him for the determination of the Court whether his objection be as to the measurement of the land the amount of compensation the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The section clearly specifies four different kinds of objections and those objections can be taken by any person interested who has not accepted the award. It is obvious that the Collector cannot fall within the expression any person interested who has not accepted the award. Secs. The section clearly specifies four different kinds of objections and those objections can be taken by any person interested who has not accepted the award. It is obvious that the Collector cannot fall within the expression any person interested who has not accepted the award. Secs. 8 9 and 12 to which reference has been made indicate that the person interested is other than the Collector and that is also clear from the definition of the expression persons interested in clause (b) of sec 8. Therefore the Collector cannot make a reference to the District Court about the true area of the land under acquisition. The claimants as persons interested could make the reference. In this case the reference was made as to the amount of compensation. Now when the claimants ask for a Reference the Collector is required by sec. 19 to send to the Court his statement setting out the information on the various points covered by clauses (a) (b) (c) and (e) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 19. Clause (a) requires the information to be given inter alia of the extent of the land. Here the extent was stated by the Collector as 7580 sq. yds. The only other sections which require to be noticed are secs. 20 and 21. Under sec. 20 the Court has to cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection to be served on the applicant on all persons interested in the objection and if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of compensation on the Collector and sec. 21 provides that the scope of the inquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the on objection Secs. 18 to 21 read together therefore go to show that the scope of the inquiry before the Court in a Reference made under secs. 18 and 19 is to consider the objection made by the persons interested under sec. 18 and no more. The scope of that inquiry cannot be enlarged by others do not ask for a reference under sec. 18 on any of the points covered by it or those who cannot file a reference under sec. 18 such as the Collector cannot in view of secs. 18 and no more. The scope of that inquiry cannot be enlarged by others do not ask for a reference under sec. 18 on any of the points covered by it or those who cannot file a reference under sec. 18 such as the Collector cannot in view of secs. 20 and 21 call for inquiry that the beyond the objections raised by him in his application for thee. This being the position on a plan reading of the relevant provisions of the Act the lower Court was not competent to inquire into the objections beyond the objection raised by him in his application for the provisions of relating to the true area of the land or to alter the award as to the area. As to the true area of the land the award would in view of sec. 12 be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the person interested. ( 7 ) TURNING now to the authorities the first case to Which our attention has been invited by Mr. Zaveri is British India Steam Navigation. Co. v. Secretary of State for India (I. L. R. 38 Calcutta 230 ). In that case there was an acquisition for the Commissioners of Port of Calcutta. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded certain sums to the claimants. The claimants asked for a Reference on the ground that the award of the Collector was very much less than the proper amount. When the matter case up before the. Special Land Acquisition Judge it was urged on behalf of the Secretary of State that the matter be remitted to the Collector with a direction that he should proceed according to law or that the offer made by the Collector be recast modified or reduced. The case of the Secretary of State was that the Land Acquisition Collator had unreasonably awarded amounts far in excess of what a should have been awarded. The question for consideration was whether the Land Acquisition Judge had jurisdiction at the instance of the Secretary of State to cancel or modify the award of the Collector a to compensation or to remit the proceedings back to the Collector for decision. The question for consideration was whether the Land Acquisition Judge had jurisdiction at the instance of the Secretary of State to cancel or modify the award of the Collector a to compensation or to remit the proceedings back to the Collector for decision. Their Lordships said :- In our opinion there is no room for controversy that the court of the Land Acquisition Judge is a Court of Special Jurisdiction the powers and duties of which are defined by the statue and that there is no foundation for the contention put forward on behalf of the secretary of state that a Court of this description can be legitimately invited to exercise inherent powers so as to assume jurisdiction over matters not intended by the legislation to be comprehended within the scope or the enquiry before it. Later on Their Lordships say :-THE scope of the reference made at the instance of a claimant under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is manifestly of a strictly limited character. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the Secretary of State were well-founded we would have to hold in substance that a reference under sec. 18 may be made at the instance not merely of the claimant best also of the Secretary of State. It follows indisputably however from an examination of the earlier sections of the Land Acquisition Act and especially of secs. 9 10 and 11 that the expression any person interested in sec. 18 does not include the Secretary of State. Sec. 18 and other sections which follow it make it reasonably plain that the question of the legality of the acquisition or the impropriety of the award of the Collector were not intended by the Legislature to form the subject of inquiry by the Paid Acquisition Judge at the instance of the Secretary of State. The reference is obtained by the claimant the objections he can urge against the award of the Collector are specified in sub-sec. (i) of sec. 18. Under sec. 20 the scope of the inquiry is restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. Therefore Their Lordships held that the question which was sought to be raised before the learned Land Acquisition Judge at the instance of the Secretary State was manifestly a question which as a Court of Special Jurisdiction he was not competent to try. Therefore Their Lordships held that the question which was sought to be raised before the learned Land Acquisition Judge at the instance of the Secretary State was manifestly a question which as a Court of Special Jurisdiction he was not competent to try. This authority therefore lays down that the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge is a Court of special jurisdiction its powers and duties are those defined by the statute bare the Land Acquisition Act it has no inherent powers dehors the provisions of that statute that the question of modification in the award in favour of the Collector cannot be raised by the Collector in a Reference made under sec. 18 and on that reference the scope of the inquiry is limited to the objections raised and cannot be enlarged by those who have not filed their objections or cannot file any. The next case to which our attention has been is the decision of the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath v. Secretary of State (A. I. R. 1930 P. C. 64) that case the claimant being dissatisfied with the amount awarded asked for a Reference to the Land Acquisition Judge. In the application for the Reference his objection was as to the amount of compensation in respect of the land acquisition. He raised no objection as to the area of land. The Reference for a and after it had been pending with the Land Acquisition Judge for a considerable time the claimant raised an objection before the learned Judge as regards the measurement contending that in fact the area was larger than stated in the award. It was held that the objection Could not be entertained. Their Lordships said that :-THE jurisdiction of the courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been take to the Collector award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation that alone is the matter referred and the Court no power to determine or consider anything beyond It. Therefore even the claimant cannot go beyond the objection raised under sec. 18 and cannot call for an inquiry into it. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation that alone is the matter referred and the Court no power to determine or consider anything beyond It. Therefore even the claimant cannot go beyond the objection raised under sec. 18 and cannot call for an inquiry into it. In the words of the Privy Council the Court has no power to determine Council consider anything beyond the objection raised in the application under sec. 18. The only other case to which our attention has been invited is the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathmma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 304) That was a case where a reference was made by the Collector to the Court under sec. 30 of the Act in respect of apportionment of compensation between different persons claiming to be interested and entitled thereto. During the hearing of that Reference the claimants appear to have put forward a case of inadequacy of the compensation and the District Court went into that question without any objection being raised by the Government Pleader. In appeal to the High Court the State contended that the District Court had no jurisdiction to consider the quantum of compensation in the absence of a Reference on the point. It was contended on behalf of the claimants before the High Court that by reason of the failure of the State to raise a plea before the lower Court as to the absence of a Reference the State must be deemed to have waived the point. The High Court accepted this argument upon the view that this was not the case of inherent lack of jurisdiction and that the defect in the procedure was such as would be waived. In appeal to the Supreme Court Their Lordships after referring to the provisions of secs. 18 and 19 of the Act observed as under :-THUS the matter goes to the Court only upon a reference made by the Collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Sec. 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the Court to consideration of the contention of the persons affected by the objection. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Sec. 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the Court to consideration of the contention of the persons affected by the objection. These provisions thus leave no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. No doubt the Land Acquisition Officer has made a Reference under sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but that reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the various claimants. Such a reference would certainly not invest the Court with the jurisdiction to consider a matter not directly connected with it. This is really not a mere technicality for as pointed out by the Privy Court in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan would Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor 6 Moo Ind. App. 134 at p. 155. wherever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with in order to create and raise the jurisdiction and if they are not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise. This was therefore a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction and the failure of the State to object to the proceedings before the Court on the ground of an absence of reference in so far as the determination of compensation was concerned cannot amount to waiver or acquiescence. Indeed when there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction the defect cannot be waived nor can be cured by acquiescence. It is therefore clear from the provisions of the Act earlier discussed and the authorities just referred to that the Court had in this case no jurisdiction to determine the question of true area of the land under acquisition and to decide that the area was not 7580 sq. yds. as stated in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer but was 7278 sq. yds. Mr. yds. as stated in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer but was 7278 sq. yds. Mr. Sompura the learned Assistant Government Pleader argued firstly that the lower Court had really determined the total amount of compensation which it was competent to do on the reference and that the determination of the area was incidental to the question of the total amount of compensation and secondly that in this case the area as found by the lower Court was accepted by the claimant in his deposition to be correct and therefore the Court was proceeding on agreement between the parties as to the true area of the land and this it had jurisdiction to do. It is not possible to accept either of these submissions. The question of area is a question separately set out in sec. 18. The fact that what the lower Court ultimately did was to adjust the total amount of compensation does not alter the nature of the question that it tried. The nature of the question that it tried is clear from the observations of the learned Joint Judge in para 3 of his judgment which have been earlier quoted in this judgment and that question was as to the true area of the land. It is the trial of this question which affected the total amount of compensation. As for the submission that the area was a affected by the claimant in his deposition it is enough to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the lasts mentioned case that when there is absence:- of inherent jurisdiction the defect cannot be cured by acquiescence. For these reasons that a part of the lower Courts order which alters the area in respect of sub plot No. 43 will have to be set aside and in respect of the area the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer will have to be restored. Order accordingly .