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 the Court hearing a land acquisition reference can go behind the Collector's reference and restrict evidence on the basis of the claimant's earlier objection, instead of confining itself to the dispute actually referred.
Analysis: The statutory scheme makes the Court's jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act a special and limited one. Once a reference is made under the relevant provisions, the Court is confined to the matter referred by the Collector and cannot function as an appellate authority over the Collector's decision. The reference in this case disclosed that the dispute concerned the claimant's asserted shikmi right and the entitlement to compensation on that basis. The Court was required to determine that dispute and allow evidence on it. Looking behind the reference to earlier objection petitions and treating the claimant as having abandoned the shikmi claim amounted to enlarging or altering the scope of the reference, which the Act does not permit.
Conclusion: The disallowance of evidence was without jurisdiction. The order under revision was rightly set aside and the matter remitted for decision on the shikmi claim after permitting both sides to adduce evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: In a land acquisition reference, the Court's jurisdiction is confined to the matter specifically referred by the Collector and it cannot go behind the reference or reduce its scope by examining earlier proceedings before the Collector.