Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 964 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. Collector

1985-10-08

S.D.AGARWALA

body1985
JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a civil revision filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Certain land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter an award was given by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Ram Sahai Vedpathi did not accept the award and made a written application to the Collector, Varanasi requiring the Collector to refer the matter to the court for determination of the amount of compensation payable to her. The Collector, Varanasi referred the matter to the District Judge u/s 18 of the Act. When the matter came up before the District Judge, the revisionist, Kamla Devi filed an application for amendment of her claim as she wanted more compensation, in particular, in regard to the trees and kachcha house etc. existing on the land which was sought to be acquired. This application was rejected by the 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi by order dated 31.07.82 on the ground that the application for amendment was not maintainable in law. Aggrieved by this decision Smt. Kamla Devi has filed the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that it is open to a party aggrieved to make an application for amendment of her application made u/s 18 of the Act before the District Judge and the view to the contrary taken by the court below is manifestly erroneous. 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is relevant for the purposes of this case is quoted below: (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. 5. The above mentioned Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act provides that if any person does not accept the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer, the said persons can make an application to the Collector for a reference of the matter to the District Judge for determination of compensation. 5. The above mentioned Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act provides that if any person does not accept the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer, the said persons can make an application to the Collector for a reference of the matter to the District Judge for determination of compensation. Once the reference has been made, the matter comes within the purview of the court of the District Judge. Basically in a reference, the award is under challenge. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act no doubt the grounds of challenge have to be stated but there is no prohibition under the Act that it cannot be challenged on a ground not mentioned in the application for reference. In my opinion once the reference is made by the Collector to the court, the court has the jurisdiction to permit addition of grounds. 6. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. 7. This Section 53 clearly provides that provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the court under the Act unless any provision is inconsistent with the Act. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC relates to the amendment of the plaint. There is no provision contrary to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in the Act. In the circumstances, in view of Section 53 of the Act, the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC are applicable to proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. In Union of India v. Sia Ram AIR 1973 Delhi 53 a similar question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court. Hon'ble D.K. Kapur, J. opined as follows: I do not see any reason why an amendment to the application u/s 18 of the Act cannot be allowed by the Additional District Judge u/s 53 of the Act. The CPC is applicable to proceedings taken before the court, if the Code is not inconsistent with the Act. The Code includes Order VI Rule 17 ". 9. I fully agree with the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Kapur, J. in the case of Union of India (supra). 10. The CPC is applicable to proceedings taken before the court, if the Code is not inconsistent with the Act. The Code includes Order VI Rule 17 ". 9. I fully agree with the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Kapur, J. in the case of Union of India (supra). 10. In view of the above the application for amendment of a reference made u/s 18 of the Act is maintainable. 11. In the circumstances, the revision is allowed. The order dated 3 sty July, 1982 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below for decision of the amendment application moved by the revisionist in accordance with law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.