IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28/07/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P. SHANMUGAM and The Honourable Mrs. Justice R. BANUMATHI A.S. No.593 of 1991 and A.S.No. 594 and 595 of 1991, Cross Objection Nos.29 & 59 of 1995 and Cross Objection Nos.25 to 31 of 2003 A.S. No.593 of 1991 : The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyar District, Erode. .. Appellant -Vs- 1. Athappa Gounder (died) 2. Chinnthamany Ammal (died) 3. Janaki Ammal 4. Dhanalakshmi Ammal 5. Chellappa Gounder 6. K.M. Karuppanna Gounder 7. Palani Gounder 8. Subramaniam (died) 9. Muthusamy 10. Chellappa Gounder (died) 11. Indirani Ammal 12. Rajammal 13. Palaniappan 14. Chengkottaian 15. Ramasamy 16. Chenniappa Gounder (died) 17. Maharaja Mudaliar 18. Govindan 19. Ponnusamy (died) 20. Madhava Panicker 21. Pathamuthu Beebi (died) 22. Palanisamy 23. Nallamuthu 24. Nallasamy Pillai 25. Arasappa Pillai (died) 26. Manickam Chettiar 27. Rajammal 28. Palaniappan 29. Kuppusamy 30. K.P. Kumarasamy 31. Subramaniam 32. K.P. Venkitusamy 33. Karuppanna Gounder 34. A. Rangasamy 35. Krishnasamy (died) 36. K. Manoharan 37. K. Bhaskaran (RR-36 & 37 recorded as L.Rs. of deceased 35th respondent as per order of Court dt.28.7.2003 made in CMP 5713 of 2003 by PSMJ & RBIJ) 38. Bhunaveswari 39. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode. (R-39 impleaded vide order of the Court dt.5.3.2002 made in CMP 5023 of 2001 by ARMJ) 40. S. Natarajan (Brought on record as L.R. of deceased 10th respondent in CMPs.26 to 28 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 41. P. Mathiyazhagan (Brought on record as L.R. of deceased 19th respondent in CMPs.29 to 31 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 42. S. Lakshmi 43. S. Kulandaisamy 44. S. Nagarajan (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 16th respondent in CMPs. 2124 to 2126 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 45. Duraisamy 46. Karuppayammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 1st respondent in CMPs.15872 to 15874 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 47. S. Sivasubramaniam 48. S. Surendiran (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 2nd respondent in CMPs. 15875 to 15877 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 49. Ponnammal 50. Gopalakrishnan 51. Jothi Pushpa 52. Dhanalakshmi 53. Suseela (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 8th respondent in CMPs.15878 to 15880 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 54. Kannammal 55. Shanmugavalli 56. Saraswathi 57. Thangammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 25th respondent in CMPs.15881 to 15883 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 58. B. Noorul Yehzan 59. B. Syed Rabia Beebi 60. Anwar Ali 61. Asraf Ali (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 21st respondent in CMPs.15884 to 15886 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) .. Respondents . . . . A.S. No.594 of 1991 : The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyar District, Erode. .. Appellant vs. 1. Athappa Gounder (died) 2. Chinnthamany Ammal (died) 3. Janaki Ammal 4. Dhanalakshmi Ammal 5. Chellappa Gounder 6. K.M. Karuppanna Gounder 7. Palani Gounder 8. Subramaniam (died) 9. Muthusamy 10. Chellappa Gounder (died) 11. Indirani Ammal 12. Rajammal 13. Palaniappan 14. Chengkottaian 15. Ramasamy 16. Chenniappa Gounder (died) 17. Maharaja Mudaliar 18. Govindan 19. Ponnusamy (died) 20. Madhava Panicker 21. Pathamuthu Beebi (died) 22. Palanisamy 23. Nallamuthu 24. Nallasamy Pillai 25. Arasappa Pillai (died) 26. Manickam Chettiar 27. Rajammal 28. Palaniappan 29. Kuppusamy 30. K.P. Kumarasamy 31. Subramaniam 32. K.P. Venkitusamy 33. Karuppanna Gounder 34. A. Rangasamy 35. Krishnasamy (died) 36. K. Manoharan 37. K. Bhaskaran (RR-36 & 37 recorded as L.Rs. of deceased 35th respondent as per order of Court dt.28.7.2003 made in CMP 5714 of 2003 by PSMJ & RBIJ) 38. Bhunaveswari 39. Manicka Sundaram 40. K.R.P. Viswanathan (R-40 impleaded as party respondent as per order of the Court dt.12.10.1995 made in CMP 12244 of 1995 by SJJ) 41. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode. (R-41 impleaded vide order of the Court dt.5.3.2002 made in CMP 5023 of 2001 by ARMJ) 42. C. Sridharan 43. C. Sridharan (R-42 brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased 10th respondent; R-43 brought on record as L.R. of the deceased 8th respondent as per order of NVBJ & PTJ dt.26.3.2003 in CMPs 18268 and 18269 of 2002) 44. S. Natarajan (Brought on record as L.R. of deceased 10th respondent in CMPs. 32 to 34 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 45. P. Mathiyazhagan (Brought on record as L.R. of deceased 19th respondent in CMPs. 35 to 37 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 46. S. Lakshmi 47. S. Kulandaisamy 48. S. Nagarajan (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 16th respondent in CMPs. 2127 to 2129 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 49. Duraisamy 50. Karuppayammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 1st respondent in CMPs.15887 to 15889 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 51. Ponnammal 52. Gopalakrishnan 53. Jothi Pushpa 54. Dhanalakshmi 55. Suseela (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 8th respondent in CMPs.15890 to 15892 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 56. Kannammal 57. Shanmugavalli 58. Saraswathi 59. Thangammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 25th respondent in CMPs.15893 to 15895 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 60. B. Noorul Yehzan 61. B. Syed Rabia Beebi 62. Anwar Ali 63. Asraf Ali (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 21st respondent in CMPs.15896 to 15898 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) .. Respondents . . . . A.S. No.595 of 1991 : The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyar District, Erode. .. Appellant vs. 1. Athappa Gounder (died) 2. Chinnthamany Ammal (died) 3. Janaki Ammal 4. Dhanalakshmi Ammal 5. Chellappa Gounder 6. K.M. Karuppanna Gounder 7. Palani Gounder 8. Subramaniam (died) 9. Muthusamy 10. Chellappa Gounder (died) 11. Indirani Ammal 12. Rajammal 13. Palaniappan 14. Chengkottaian 15. Ramasamy 16. Chenniappa Gounder (died) 17. Maharaja Mudaliar 18. Govindan 19. Ponnusamy (died) 20. Madhava Panicker 21. Pathamuthu Beebi (died) 22. Palanisamy 23. Nallamuthu 24. Nallasamy Pillai 25. Arasappa Pillai (died) 26. Manickam Chettiar 27. Rajammal 28. Palaniappan 29. Kuppusamy 30. K.P. Kumarasamy 31. Subramaniam 32. K.P. Venkitusamy 33. Karuppanna Gounder 34. A. Rangasamy 35. Krishnasamy (died) 36. K. Manoharan 37. K. Bhaskaran (RR-36 & 37 recorded as L.Rs. of deceased 35th respondent as per order of Court dt.28.7.2003 made in CMP 5715 of 2003 by PSMJ & RBIJ) 38. Bhunaveswari 39. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode. (R-39 impleaded vide order of the Court dt.5.3.2002 made in CMP 5023 of 2001 by ARMJ) 40. S. Natarajan 41. P. Mathiyazhagan (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 10th respondent in CMPs. 41 to 43 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 42. S. Lakshmi 43. S. Kulandaisamy 44. S. Nagarajan (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 16th respondent in CMPs. 2130 to 2132 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 45. S. Sivasubramaniam 46. S. Surendiran (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 2nd respondent in CMPs. 15902 to 15904 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 47. Duraisamy 48. Karuppayammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 1st respondent in CMPs. 15899 to 15901 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 49. Ponnammal 50. Gopalakrishnan 51. Jothi Pushpa 52. Dhanalakshmi 53. Suseela (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 8th respondent in CMPs. 15906 to 15907 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 54. Kannammal 55. Shanmugavalli 56. Saraswathi 57. Thangammal (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 25th respondent in CMPs. 15908 to 15910 of 2003 by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) 58. B. Noorul Yehzan 59. B. Syed Rabia Beebi 60. Anwar Ali 61. Asraf Ali (Brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased 21st respondent by order of PSMJ & RBIJ dt.28.7.2003) .. Respondents PRAYER : Appeals and Cross Objections against the judgment and decree dated 5.7.1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.13, 14 and 16 of 1984. Appearance !For Appellants : Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, Additional Advocate General for A.G.P. (A.S.) in the 3 appeals. ^For Respondents : Mr. N. Balasubramanian [A.S. No.593/91] (RR.6,7,10,15,16,36 & 37) Mr. G. Jawaharlal (R-3) Mr. B. Soundarapandian (R-9) Mr. S. Chandrasekar (R-21) Mr. N. Manoharan (R-22) Mr. R. Dhananjayan (RR.30 to 32) Mr. V. Karthikeyan (R-19)(TNHB) Mr. M.S. Ramesh (R-35) [A.S. No.594/91] : Mr. B. Soundarapandian (R-9) Mr. S. Chandrasekar (R-21) Mr. N. Manoharan (R-22) Mr. N. Balasubramanian (RR.19 & 39) Mr. R. Dhananjayan (RR.30 to 32) Mr. V.K. Nachimuthu (R-34) Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, Senior Counsel (R-40) Mr. K. Doraisamy, Senior Counsel (R-28) Mr. V. Karthikeyan (TNHB) Mr. N. Manoharan (R-42 & 43) Mr. M.S. Ramesh (R-35) [A.S. No.595/91] : Mr. G. Jawaharlal (R-3) Mr. B. Soundarapandian (R-9) Mr. N. Balasubramanian (RR.6,15, 16 & 22) Mr. M.S. Ramesh (R-35) Mr. K. Doraisamy, Senior Counsel (R-38) Mr. N. Manoharan (R-21) Mr. R. Dhananjayan (RR.30 to 32) Mr. V. Karthikeyan (R-39 TNHB) For Cross Objectors in Cross : Mr. K. Manoharan Objection No.29 of 1995 For Cross Objectors in Cross : Mr. S. Rajasekar Objection No.59 of 1995 Mr. M.S. Ramesh For Cross Objectors in Cross : Mr. S. Rajasekar Objection Nos.25 to 31 of 1995 Mr. M.S. Ramesh For the State in all : Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, the Cross Objections Addl. Advocate General for Mr. R. Asokan, A.G.P. (A.S.) :J U D G M E N T P.SHANMUGAM, J. The three appeals and the Cross Objections are filed against the Land Acquisition Awards passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.13, 14 and 16 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, Periyar District. A total extent of 156.78 acres of land in Erode and Soorampatty Villages of Erode Taluk were acquired for the construction of houses under the Low Income Group and Middle Income Group Schemes and also for the construction of the Office of the District Collector as well as the District Court Building. 2. In the three appeals, we are concerned with three sets of L.A.O. Ps. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.156, Housing dated 27.2.1973 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 1 4.3.1973. The following lands are covered under these L.A.O.Ps. as per the Reference by the Land Acquisition Officer : L.A.O.P. No.13 of 1984 : Survey (Field) No. Extent 412/15 0.09.5 (0.24 acres) L.A.O.P. No.14 of 1984 : Survey (Field) No. Extent 409/12 0.04.5 412/3 0.21.0 412/5B 0.09.5 412/12 0.70.0 412/17 0.08.5 412/19 0.05.0 413/14 0.06.5 412/8B 0.21.0 412/11B 0.00.5 ------ Total Extent 1.26.5 Hectares (or) 3.13 Acres ------ L.A.O.P. No.16 of 1984 : Survey (Field) No. Extent 409/3A 0.00.5 Ares (0.01 cent) 3. The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode passed an Award in reference to the above lands in Award No.1 of 1980 dated 29.2.1980 thereby determining the market value of these lands at Rs.2/- per sq.ft. and after deducting 20% towards the developmental charges, fixed the compensation at Rs.1/35 per sq.ft. The Land Acquisition Officer in all these awards has observed that the real owners have stated that the interested persons notified in the fields in question are the same persons notified as interested persons in R.S. Nos.409/1A and 409/2. The interested persons who appeared for the award enquiry could not say as to whom the fields belong. They have simply objected to the acquisition of the fields. Inasmuch as there is no documentary evidence to show the exact persons who own the above fields, the compensation could not be apportioned and paid to the proper interested persons. Therefore, in the absence of the real contesting parties, it was not safe to apportion the compensation between the persons. Hence, the compensation was ordered to be deposited in the Sub-Court under Section 30 of the Act. The Sub-Court has amended the word 'Section 30' as 'Section 18' as per the order in I.A. No.183 of 1987 dated 3.12.1987. The Form of Reference sent to the court in Reference No.21444/74/A8 dated 4.8.1981 by the Land Acquisition Officer, viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer was made under Section 30 of the Act. However, it was ordered to be corrected and amended as one made under Section 18 of the Act on the basis of the order in I.A. No.187 of 1987 dated 3.12.1987. The letter was addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Principal Subordinate Judge in Reference No.2 1444/74/A8 dated 4.8.1981 wherein the subject of acquisition referred to in the Reference under Section 30 of the Act was corrected as one under Section 18 as per the amendment in I.A. No.183 of 1987 dated 3 .12.1987. However, the prayer in these Forms of Reference which state the reasons for Reference as follows : "The interested persons could not say the share of each person in these lands. Hence, the compensation could not be apportioned and is deposited in court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act." "I request that the Reference under Section 30 may please be taken on file and disposed of according to law." In one of the Forms of Reference dated 4.8.1981, Section 30 has been replaced by Section 18 as per the amendment made in I.A. No.183 of 19 87 dated 3.12.1987. The learned Judge, amending the Reference under Section 30 as one under Section 18 of the Act, at the instance of the claimants in these three L.A.O.Ps., proceeded to consider the same under Section 23-A of the Act and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7/- per sq.ft. in all these cases. Aggrieved by the order/award passed by the Sub-Court, the Government has preferred the appeals. Insofar as L.A.O.P. No.14 of 1984 is concerned, the learned Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,42,365/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.25,83,784/-. The appeals are against this order. 4. In the Memorandum of Grounds filed on 6.3.1991, the appellant/ Government has specifically pleaded in Ground Nos.3 to 6 as follows : (4) The court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the Reference under Section 30 as one under Section 18 and awarding the enhancement. (5) The court below has failed to note that under the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants could claim enhanced compensation and could request the Collector to make a Reference under Section 18, if they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and only if they give their request in writing to the Collector within the given time. (6) The court below has failed to note that in this case, the claimants have not given any request in writing for claiming enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act and that is why no Reference under Section 18 was sent to the Sub-Court. (7) The court below ought to have seen that only for the apportionment of the compensation amount, the matter was sent to the Sub-Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and not for anything else." The appellant has also questioned the enhancement on merits and the actual extent of land involved in the Reference. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy submitted that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is without jurisdiction, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. According to him, the learned Judge, after having accepted the value as shown in Ex.A.19, viz. the value as determined by this court in A.S. No.584 of 1986 dated 14.10.1989 in reference to the land just opposite to the lands under acquisition divided by National Highway Road, ought not have enhanced the compensation to Rs.7/- per sq.ft. He has submitted that Rs.5/- had been fixed as the correct market value after taking into account the potentiality of the land, etc. and the learned Judge has committed a serious error in once again duplicating and enhancing the compensation simply on the basis that the town is likely to expand and that there are a number of industries and also as there is a potentiality for the increase in the value of the land. He has also submitted that the learned Judge has not considered the actual extent of the lands acquired and the compensation awarded and he therefore prays for setting aside of the judgment of the Sub-Court. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. V.K. Muthusamy and others fairly concede that there is no provision for amending the Reference under Section 30 as one under Section 18 of the Act. However, it is pleaded that inasmuch as one of the claimants has requested for a Reference by letter dated 9.5.1980, legal notice dated 9.1.1985 and a petition under Order VI, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed before the Sub-Court, which was ordered, other claimants are entitled to seek for an amendment in reference to their claims also. According to him, these amendments were not objected to by the learned Government Pleader appearing before the Sub-Court and hence the same were rightly considered. According to them, the acquired land has got an additional advantage and considering the development of the land in and around the acquired land, the enhancement at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.ft. is reasonable and hence, it should be confirmed. 7. We have heard the counsel for either side and considered the matter carefully. 8. The appellants have raised a specific ground as set out above as to the want of jurisdiction on the part of the Sub-Court to convert a Reference under Section 30 into one under Section 18 of the Act. None of the claimants have chosen to file any additional documents to oppose the submission that the claimants have given requisition for enhancement and that on the failure to send a Reference, they moved the Sub-Court claiming enhanced compensation, assuming that such a course is permissible. 9. Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 says that an award passed by the Collector shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and the value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 says that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such person interested as are not present personally or represented by their representative when the award is made. In this case, the award in Award No.1 of 1980 dated 29.12.1980 was served in person in January, 1980. The Reference under Section 30 of the Act also says that the interested persons who appeared for enquiry were unable to say the share of each person in the field. As the shares of the persons in these fields could not be decided, the compensation was directed to be deposited into court deposit under Section 30 of the Act and thereafter, a Reference dated 4.8.1981 was made under Section 30 of the Act, the reason for the Reference being that the interested persons could not say the share of each person in these lands. Section 30 of the Act requires the Collector to refer the dispute as to apportionment. Therefore, there is no scope for considering the enhancement in a Reference under Section 18. 10. The requisite of the Reference under Section 18 is well known and Section 18 says that any person interested and who has not accepted the award may, by writing, require the matter be referred to by the Collector for determination of the court as to whether his objection, be it to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested. Such an application with specified grounds shall be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award or within six months if notice is issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. Therefore, the requirements are that the person interested should not have accepted the award and there must be a written application to the Collector requesting him to refer the matter. That application should specify whether the objection is in reference to the determination of the amount, measurement of the land or as to whom it is payable. Thus, it could be seen that the scope of the Reference under Section 18 and the Reference under Section 30 is entirely different. 11. If a Reference had been made under Section 30, a separate Reference has to be sought for under Section 18 and that too must be made before the Collector in writing. The Reference under Section 30 having come to the Sub-Court to decide the question of the apportionment on account of the dispute between the sharers to whom it is payable, the Sub-Court cannot correct those reference letters or forms enclosed in those letters of reference and convert the Reference as one under Section 18. That would be not only without jurisdiction, but would be beyond the competence of the Sub-Court to do so. As it could be seen, in this case, the subject portion of the Revenue Divisional Officer's letter and last prayer portion of one of the References under Section 30 have been corrected as one under Section 18. Such a course is nothing but misuse of power and the provisions of amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. The court can only seek for an amendment of the pleading of the parties, and that too if necessary, for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It is obvious that a reference/requisition to decide the dispute by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be construed as a petition of the claimant to amend it at their instance and secondly, the requisition being one under Section 30 which would decide the question in controversy, viz. the dispute between the parties, it cannot go beyond the scope of Section 30. It is unfortunate that the Sub Judge did not appreciate the legal implications arising out of his order. 12. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the course adopted by the learned Sub Judge is to be held as one without jurisdiction and the learned Judge is not competent to go into the question. In the preamble portion of the judgment, which is not paragraphed, the learned Judge has stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has sent Award No.1 of 1980 dated 22.9.1980 under Section 30 and consequently, the award was taken on file and while so, the claimants have filed applications to enquire the said Reference under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the request of the Collector has been altered into one under Section 18 of the Act. It is not clear whether notice was ordered to the appellant. The copy of the order in I.A. is not seen in the files and none of the parties are able to produce a copy. 13. In Kanagarathinam & Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1964 (6) S.C.C. 294], the very question was posed before the Supreme Court, viz. when there is no reference to the court on the question of quantum of compensation, whether the court is competent to deal with such matters even though there was no objection to the proceedings before the court by the State. The Supreme Court has held as follows : "(i) On consideration of the relevant provisions contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the jurisdiction of the court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. Wherever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein, it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with,