SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. SHYAMAPADA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Premises Nos. 13/1 and 13/3 Lake Road were acquired in connexion with Scheme No. 33, Southern Avenue Section by declaration No. 3481-L.A., dated 7 March 1932, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 10 March 1932. Five persons including one Kalipada Banerjee claimed interest in No. 13/1 Lake Road, He and a minor named Sunil Kumar Chatterjee through his guardian claimed interest in the other premises, namely 13/3, Lake Road. The Collector gave his award under Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, on 21 August 1933, in respect of premises No. 13/1. He found the area to be 2 cottas, 9 chittacks and 10 square feet which he valued at the rate of Rs. 800 per cottah. He further found that out of the five claimants only two, namely Tara Sundari Dasi and Aswini Kumar Mukherjee were entitled to compensation. Of these two persons in whose favour the award was made by the Collector only Tara Sundari Dasi accepted the award. The Collector published his award in respect of premises No. 13/3 Lake Road on 17 June 1933. He found the area to be 3 cottas 9 chittacks 9 square feet and valued it at the rate of Rs. 1350 per cottah. He found that the minor Sunil Kumar Chatterjee was alone entitled to get the whole compensation. The award was accepted by the guardian of the minor on behalf of the minor. Kalipada Banerjee then applied to the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, for reference to the tribunal for determination by the tribunal of his objections to the two awards. His grounds of objection to both the awards so far as they are relevant for the purposes of the present appeals were : (1) to the amount of compensation and (2) to the person to whom the compensation is payable. The Collector accordingly made two references to the tribunal. The reference in respect of premises No. 13/1 Lake Road was registered in the tribunal as Valuation Case No. 162 of 1933, while the reference in respect of the other premises was registered as Valuation Case No. 108 of 1933. Kalipada died during the pendency of the proceedings before the tribunal arid the present respondent as executor to his estate was substituted in his place.

(2.) On 23 April 1937, the tribunal arrived at the following conclusions : (1) that the market Value of premises No. 13/1 Lake Road is Rs. 918-8-0 per cottah and that of premises No. 13/3 Lake Road is Rs. 1550 per cottah and, consequently, the award of the Collector in respect of premises No. 13/1 Lake Road1 should be enhanced by Rupees 351-1-13 while the other award of the Collector should be enhanced by Rs. 822-4-0 and (2) that the respondent is entitled to receive enhanced amounts in the two cases. The Province of Bengal appeals to this Court against this decision with a certificate from the President of the Tribunal under Section 3(1)(b) (i), Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act, 1911, that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court. First Appeal No. 255 of 1937 arises out of Valuation Case No. 108 of 1933 and First Appeal No. 256 of 1937 arises out of Valuation Case No. 162 of 1933.

(3.) The first contention of the appellant to that the decision of the tribunal on the amount of compensation is bad in law inasmuch as the tribunal has not come to any finding on the issue raised by the appellant, namely whether Kalipada could maintain the valuation references, which involves the question whether Kalipada had any title to the lands acquired. In other words, the contention is that the issue about the title of Kalipada is germane to the question of the amount of compensation. I am unable to accept this contention. The jurisdiction of the Court on a reference by the Collector is a special jurisdiction. If the only objection is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the matter referred to, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond what is referred : see Pramatha Nath V/s. Secretary of State . The question of title to the land acquired is therefore not relevant in a reference on the question of the amount of compensation only. Much reliance was placed by the appellant upon Section 21, Land Acquisition Act, which provides: The scope of the inquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection.