Joinder of parties in reference under land acquisition Act

 It is settled law that under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to deal with objections except those which are made by persons who were parties to proceedings before the Collector, or who have since within six months applied to the Collector to make a supplementary reference in their case. This view of the law has been extended in the case of Prabal Chandra Mukerjee v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukerjee 12 C.W.N. 987 to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and it is obvious, on a perusal of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, the first two Sections in Part IV, that the Act does not contemplate any decision by the Special Court unless reference is made by the Collector.

2. We are asked to hold that under Section 53 the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the Special Court under this Act. But that Section is careful to lay down that they only apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in this Act. Now the addition of parties by the Civil Court, who have not been made parties to the reference by the Collector, is wholly inconsistent with the Act. The Civil Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to make the respondent a party and he, therefore, has never been a party to the proceedings on the reference and he cannot obtain any relief in a proceeding consequent upon the reference.

Calcutta High Court

Mahananda Roy vs Srish Chandra Tewari And Ors. on 28 June, 1910

Equivalent citations: 7 Ind Cas 10

Bench: Holmwood, Sharf-Ud-Din

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia sitting as Special Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 by which he has awarded a portion of the compensation to one Chandra Sekhar Tewari and others who joined in the proceeding for the first time in the Court of the Special Judge and did not apply to the Collector for any order of reference. It is settled law that under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to deal with objections except those which are made by persons who were parties to proceedings before the Collector, or who have since within six months applied to the Collector to make a supplementary reference in their case. This view of the law has been extended in the case of Prabal Chandra Mukerjee v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukerjee 12 C.W.N. 987 to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and it is obvious, on a perusal of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, the first two Sections in Part IV, that the Act does not contemplate any decision by the Special Court unless reference is made by the Collector.
2. We are asked to hold that under Section 53 the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the Special Court under this Act. But that Section is careful to lay down that they only apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in this Act. Now the addition of parties by the Civil Court, who have not been made parties to the reference by the Collector, is wholly inconsistent with the Act. The Civil Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to make the respondent a party and he, therefore, has never been a party to the proceedings on the reference and he cannot obtain any relief in a proceeding consequent upon the reference.
3. It is perfectly clear that as far as this reference is concerned, this appeal must be decreed and the order giving apportionment to Chandra Sekhar Tewari and Ors. must be set aside and the money allotted to them must be given to the petitioner Mohananda Roy.
4. The appellant is entitled to his costs in both Courts in proportion to the sum decreed.
5. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at one gold mohur.

Print Page