Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a co-sharer who did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could claim enhancement of compensation on the basis of a reference made at the instance of another co-sharer.
Analysis: The right of a claimant to seek enhanced compensation under the Act depends on a valid reference made under Section 18 within the prescribed limitation. The making of an in writing under Section 18(1) and compliance with Section 18(2) are conditions precedent to the civil court's jurisdiction. Section 53 of the Act does not make the general procedural rule in Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable where the statutory procedure is inconsistent. A reference sought by one co-sharer in respect of his own share cannot be treated as a reference on behalf of all co-sharers, particularly when the compensation was apportioned separately and no timely application was shown to have been made by the appellant.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation, as no valid reference under Section 18 had been made on her behalf.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil court can determine enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only on a valid and timely reference under Section 18, and a reference by one co-sharer does not, by itself, extend to other co-sharers who have not sought such reference.