K. G. Balakrishnan, J. - (1.) An extent of 2 bigha, 5 biswa and 8 dhur of land falling in Village Civil Station in the city of Allahabad was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), for establishing a commercial district centre at the instance of the Allahabad Development Authority (ADA). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13-1-1987 and Declaration under Section 6(1) was made on 6-2-1987. Emergency provision under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and the award was published on 25-5-1987. The land in question was Government land which had been given on lease to Shiv Narain Chaudhary, Laxman Narain Chaudhary and others. The period of lease had expired in 1960 and it was not renewed. The award was passed on 25-5-1987 and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 9,80,565.06. As both the Government and the lease holders claimed the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) referred this dispute to the Civil Court on 12-10-1987 under Section 30 of the Act. The Reference was registered as Reference Case No.124 of 1987 and the matter was pending before the 11th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad. While the matter was so pending, the Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, sent a communication on 11-8-1992 to the SLAO stating that on perusal of the case file, an application filed under Section 18 of the Act by the appellant herein, namely, Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (Appellant-Samiti), was found to be on the file and that no mention had been made regarding that application in the letter of reference. A clarification, therefore, was sought by the Addl. District Judge. Pursuant to this communication, the SLAO sent the reply stating that such an application was also attached and due to an error, the same was not mentioned in the letter dated 12-10-1987. After the receipt of this letter, the 11th Addl. District Judge impleaded the appellant-Samiti and proceeded in the matter as if there was a proper reference under Section 18 of the Act. It was held by the Addl. District Judge that for the land acquired by the Government, the market value shall be Rs. 1,400/- per square yard. Seventy five per cent of the compensation was directed to be paid to the appellant-Samiti and the balance twenty five per cent was directed to be paid to the State Government.
(2.) The award passed by the Addl. District Judge was challenged by the sponsoring authority, viz., Allahabad Development Authority (ADA) as well as the State. ADA urged before the High Court that there was no proper reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation and that the Addl. District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that the appellant-Samiti did not participate in the acquisition proceedings and therefore, they were not entitled to file reference application under Section 18 of the Act. The High Court accepted the contentions raised by the ADA and the State and held that there was no proper reference under Section 18 of the Act and enhancement of compensation ordered by the reference Court was set aside. However, the finding on issue No. 2 that the Samiti will be entitled to get seventy five per cent of the compensation amount and the balance twenty five per cent shall be given to the State, was affirmed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged before us.
(3.) We heard the appellants counsel and counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellant-Samiti submitted before us that the SLAO, by his subsequent letter, clarified that an error had been committed in not mentioning about the application submitted by the appellant-Samiti in the reference letter, although such application itself had been sent along with the reference file by the SLAO to the Additional District Judge. Learned counsel submitted that there was proper reference under Section 18 of the Act and, therefore, the award passed by the Civil Court was proper and valid and was not liable to be quashed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there was no proper reference under Section 18 and as there was no such reference, the Addl. District Judge lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is non est and has rightly been set aside by the High Court.;