Civil Appeal No 195 of 1978
From the Judgment and Order dated 1081976 of the Delhi High Court in CR No 354 of 1975
Dr YS Chitale KB Rohatagi SK Dhingra and Shashank Shekhar for the Appellants
VC Mahajan RB Mishra CVS Rao and SN Terdal for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 1081976 in Civil Revision No 354 of 1975
Agricultural land measuring 78 bighas and 14 biswas belonging to the appellants situated in village Garhi Peeran was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 10101967 allowing compensation for land in block A   Rs 2300 per bigha and in block B   Rs 1200 per bigha
The claimantsappellants submitted an application under Sec 18 of the Act for making a reference to the Court
The Collector made a reference to the Court in pursuance to the said application submitted by the appellants
The Additional District Judge by Judgment dated 1511971 increased the amount of compensation to Rs4000 per bigha for land in block A  and Rs2500 per bigha for land in block B 
The appellants filed an application on 1611971 under Sections 151 153 CPC before the Additional District Judge praying that the land in Khasra Nos 408 411 763 764 891 893 410 432 433 504 506 761 900 901  904 had not been shown by the Land Acquisition Collector in the statement under Section 19 of the Act although he had sent he names of all the Bhoomidars of the aforesaid land
The mistake was on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and the appellants should not suffer on account of the mistake or oversight of the Collector
It was thus prayed that in the interest of justice the Collector may be directed to file a revised statement under Sec
19 of the Act giving the details of the whole of the land belonging to the claimants which had been left out on account of accidental slip or omission
The application was opposed on behalf of the Union of India
The Additional District Judge after hearing the parties at length by order dated 1821975 allowed the 652 application and directed the Land Acquisition Collector concerned to furnish the correct statement under Sec
19 of the Act regarding the land acquired of the appellants
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Additional District Judge Union of India filed a revision before the High Court
The High Court by judgment dated 1081976 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional District Judge dated 1821975
The appellants have now come in appeal against the order of the High Court
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record
There is no manner of dispute that the land acquired was 78 bighas and 14 biswas and the appellants were entitled to the compensation of the entire land
The Land Acquisition Collector gave an award and the appellants being not satisfied with the amount of compensation submitted an application for making a reference to the Court under Sec 18 of the Act
A perusal of the application submitted by the appellants under Sec
18 of the Act shows that in para 1 it was stated as under That the claimants  land details of which are given in the schedule has been acquired under the aforesaid Award
The Collector has awarded a very low rate of compensation to which claimants are not satisfied as their claims have not been adequately considered by the Collector
 Thereafter grounds of reference were stated and ground 9 which is relevant for our purpose is reproduced as under 9
That the claimant petitioners claim compensation for the whole of their land at the rate of Rs 20000 per bigha Rs10000 for the well and Rs200 each for each tree
They further claim Rs60000 each for their resettlement as their entire land in the village has been taken away under the acquisition and they have been uprooted
They also claim 15 solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation plus the solatium with effect from 431963
 A schedule of land belonging to claimant petitioners was also annexed with the application which is as under 653 Kh
Area 898 4 16 899 0 11 417 1 03 431 2 09 407 0 05 405 1 11 507 5 06 514 4 16 515 4 16 520 2 04 406 2 17 416 3 08 etc
etc The High Court took the view that only those Khasra Nos
which were specifically mentioned in the schedule could alone be considered for the purpose of enhancement of the claim of compensation and not the entire land acquired
The area of the above Khasra Nos
amounted to 34 bighas 2 biswas only though the total area of acquired land amounted to 78 bighas and 14 biswas
The High Court in this regard took the view that the reference was made by the Collector by sending a statement of the Court of the Additional District Judge under Sec
19 of the Act
In this statement only those fields were included which had been listed in the schedule attached to the application under Sec 18
The High Court further held that the power of the Collector to make the reference was restricted to what was stated in the claimants  application for reference under Sec 18 and does not extend beyond it
If the claimant does not include some fields in his reference application the Collector cannot include it in the statement under Sec 19
The High Court further held as under In the original reference petition under section 18 by claimants the adjective whole was used in relation to the 654 land of the claimants and the words etc
 were also used in the schedule
At the same time certain fields of the claimants which were the subject matter of the Collector s award were not included in the reference petition
There was certainly an ambiguity as to the intention of the claimants as expressed by the reference petition
The counsel for the Union of India was therefore justified in requesting the Additional District Judge to call upon the claimants either to admit the statement sent by the Collector under Section 19 or to file an amended reference petition stating their shares individually
The Additional District Judge was also justified in asking the counsel for the claimants to examine the preliminary objections and to make a statement
The power of the Court to call upon the counsel for the claimants to make a statement was derived from Order X Civil Procedure Code
Under Rule 2 of Order X the Court had power to examine a party or his pleader and to record his answer in relation to any material question relating to the reference before it
Under Order XIV rule 3 the materials on which issues had to be framed by the Court included such statements made by the pleaders of the parties under Order X Accordingly we find that the learned Additional District Judge used the statement made by the counsel for the claimants as the basis for dismissing the preliminary objections advanced by the Union of India
The Counsel for the claimants had authority to make the statement which he did
The Supreme Court has recently pointed out in Smt
Jamilabai vs Shankarlal Gulabchand AIR 1975 SC 2202 that the implied authority of the counsel extends not only to make such a statement but even to compromise a suit or to admit a claim
Had the counsel for the claimants not made the statement there that the Collector s statement under Section 19 is correct the Additional District Judge would have been found to call upon the claimants to clarify the schedule to the reference petition so that the Court could know precisely the fields in respect of which enhancement of compensation was claimed
It is because the claimants  counsel asked the Court to take the Collector s statement under Section 19 as correct that the Court decided to investigate only the correctness of the compensation regarding those fields
 The High Court ultimately took the view that the only conclusion 655 possible was that the enhancement was restricted to the land in dispute and the land in dispute could only be such land in respect of which reference was demanded by the claimants
In our view the High Court was totally wrong and unnecessarily complicated the matter which seems to us quite simple
It is an admitted position that 78 bighas and 14 biswas of land belonging to the appellants was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector had given an award  Rs2300 per bigha for block A  and Rs1200 per bigha for block B 
The appellants were not satisfied with the above rate of compensation and they had moved an application for making a reference under Sec 18 of the Act
In the application it was clearly mentioned that the Collector had awarded a very low rate of compensation to which the claimants were not satisfied
In ground No 9 the claimantspetitioners had mentioned that they were claiming compensation for the whole of their land  Rs20000 per bigha
That apart in the schedule also some khasra Nos
were mentioned specifically but in the end the words used were etc
etc 
The Additional District Judge had passed the order on 1511971 and immediately on the next day ie 1611971 the appellants had submitted the application under Secs
151 153 CPC for correcting the mistake
The Additional District Judge who was seized of the matter allowed the said application by his order dated 1821975
Thus from a perusal of the application filed under Sec
18 of the Act alongwith the schedule we are fully satisfied that the appellants were claiming an enhancement in the compensation in respect of the entire land acquired and there was no question of asking for a reference for a limited portion of land measuring 34 bighas and 2 bigwas only
The High Court unnecessarily went into the question of some statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants before the Additional District Judge and in examining its validity under Order X of the CPC It was a simple matter to be decided on the basis of factual statements made in the application and we are fully convinced that the appellants had sought a reference for the entire land acquired and there was no reason whatsoever in leaving out some portion of the land when the grievance of the appellants was for enhancing the compensation which was awarded at a low rate
The appellants were not required to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a prayer for enhancement of compensation while moving an application to the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Sec 18 of the Act
Learned counsel for the Union of India was unable to give any plausible explanation which might have persuaded the appellants to have left a large portion of the land in the application filed under Sec
18 of the Act from claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation
656 In order to appreciate the controversy we would like to Secs
18  19 of the Act which are reproduced as under Sec 18
Reference to Court 1 Any person interested who has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection to the measurement of the land the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested
2 The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken Provided that every such application shall be made a if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector s award b in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Sec
12 sub section 2 or within six months from the date of the Collector s award whichever period shall first expire
19 Collector s statement to the Court 1 In making the reference the Collector shall state for the information of the Court in writing under his hand a the situation and extent of the land with particulars of any trees buildings or standing crops thereon b the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land c the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under section 5 and 17 or either of them and the amount of compensation awarded under section 11and d if the objection be to the amount of the compensation 657 grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined
2 To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively
 Under Sec 18 of the Act the only requirement for the person interested who had not accepted the award was to move a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court
One of the grounds for the accepting the award was the amount of compensation
Once such application was moved it was the duty of the Collector to make a reference to the Court
Under Sec
19 of the Act while making the reference the Collector was required to state for the information of the Court the particulars as mentioned in clauses a to d of sub Sec
1 of Sec 19 of the Act
Thus it was the duty of the Collector to mention not only the situation and extent of land but even particulars of any trees buildings or standing crops thereon
The agriculturist whose land is acquired may not be fully conversant with the khasra No or area as entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State acquiring such land should not be allowed to take any advantage of such ignorance of the agriculturists
Once an application is moved for making a reference under Sec
18 of the Act it becomes the duty of the Collector to send full information to the Court regarding the entire land acquired and it is thereafter the duty of the Court to decide the matter in accordance with law
Thus looking into the matter from any angle we are fully satisfied that the Additional District Judge was justified in allowing the application filed by the appellants and the High Court committed an error in deciding the matter with a wrong approach and in a technical manner
In the result we allow this appeal set aside the order of the High Court dated 1081976 and uphold the order of the Additional District Judge dated 1511971 with costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants are high ranking officers in Rajasthan Administrative Service governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954
Consequent upon the amendment caused to the said rules on July 17 1987 they felt that the amendment had affected their further promotional chances
They therefore filed writ petitions before the High court challenging the vires of the amendment dated 1771987 contending that the creation of Super time scale did not have the automatic effect of creating highest postposts to be filled by merit alone and that the posts to which Super Time Scale was attracted remained higher posts  in contrast to highest posts  available to the members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service on the prescribed percentage of 50 per cent on merit and the remaining fifty per cent on seniority cum merit
Their case was that section to the highest posts made under the amended rule solely on the basis of the merit was bad in law
Before the High Court challenge to the vires of the amendment was abandoned and the High Court considered the question i whether the Super time scale isare the highest postposts in the service and ii if it is so whether the postposts isare to be filled on the basis of seniority cum merit in the proportion of 5050 or on merit alone in accordance with sub rule 7 of Rule 28 B of the Rules The High Court rejected the writ petitions opening that the Super Time Scale postposts waswere the highest postposts in the service and those are required to be filled on merit alone and not in the proportion of 5050 on the basis of merit and seniority cum merit
Hence these appeals by the appellants
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD The terms higher post  and highest post  occurring in 580 Rules 28 B and 32 by all means are relative ones expected to be created in singular or plural terms under rule 6 whereunder the strength of posts in each grade was determinable by the government from time to time
Sub rule 7 even before the amendment of 1771987 postulated a highest postpost capable of being filled on the basis of merit alone
590 G H Super Time Scale posts are the highest posts in the service and selection for promotion and appointment on that basis in the service has to be made on the basis of merit alone and not on the basis of seniority cum merit in the proportion of 5050591 G JK Cotton Spinning  Weaving Mills Co Ltd vs State of U P and Ors   Lt Col Prithi Pal Singh Bedi etc
vs Union of India and Ors