JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. The order dated 18.11.1998, passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, District Judge. Allahabad, scrapping of issue No. 3 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has given rise to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the following circumstances :
2. There is a property No., 21/31 Moti Lal Nehru Road, revenue plot Nos. 8 and 9. Allahabad, which is earmarked for residential purposes in the master plan. The said land was held by one N. D. Agarwal in his capacity as perpetual lessee with transferable rights. Uma Shankar Singh-respendent No. 3, who claims himself to be the Secretary Shiv Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Allahabad, purchased the rights in the land from N. D. Agarwal through three separate registered sale deeds after obtaining a "no-objection' certificate from the Prescribed Authority, Urban Land Celling, Allahabad.
3. The land aforesaid was acquired by the State Government by invoking the provisions of the Act for the benefit of Allahabad Development Authority (for short 'A.D.A.') for residential purposes and an award was made in Case No. 132 of 1991 on 7.2.1991 after due approval by the Board of Revenue on 19.1.1991. Under the award, a sum of Rs. 1.17.87.780.89, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,43,97,169.64 P. by means of the supplementary award, was made payable as compensation. The A.D.A. allotted the acquired property in favour of University of Allahabad and in this manner, now the ultimate beneficiary of the acquired land is the present petitioner-University of Allahabad. Respondent No. 3 moved the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Court. Accordingly a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made and it came to be registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 132 of 1991. This reference was transferred to the Court of 6th Additional District Judge. Allahabad who after hearing counsel for parties, framed seven issues in the case on 20.8.1997. The crucial issue No. 3 around which centers the controversy between the parties runs as follows :
"Whether Uma Shankar Singh applicant/petitioner in reference (present respondent No. 3) has any, interest in the disputed land and whether he is entitled to maintain the reference (under Section 18)?"
4. It appears that the reference was proceeding at snail's speed and consequently, respondent No. 3 approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 8429 of 1998. which was dispqsed of on 5.3.1998 with the direction, that reference, aforesaid, shall be decided by the Court concerned within three months in accordance with law. Subsequently, another Writ Petition No. 17386 of 1998 was filed by the University of Allahabad which was disposed of on 4.9.1998 with the direction that the reference shall be heard either by the District Judge, Allahabad, himself or by any Additional District Judge nominated by him, other than 8th and 9th Additional District Judges at the relevant time and that the matter should be decided within four months of the date of production of a certified copy of the order before the District Judge, Allahabad. This Court had the sanguine expectation that the parties shall cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
5. In the light of the above orders. Land Acquisition Reference No. 132 of 1991 came to be heard by learned District Judge. Allahabad. During the course of recording of evidence of respondent No. 3--Uma Shankar Singh, he was subjected to cross-examination with reference to his right, title and interest in the acquired land. An application, paper No. 113C, was moved by the respondent No. 3 for deleting issue No. 3. Learned District Judge, by the impugned order has scored out issue No. 3 holding that it was unnecessary.
6. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being disposed of finally, at this stage.
7. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner- University of Allahabad, Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3--Uma Shankar Singh. Sri U. K. Uniyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State.
8. Dr. Padia urged that an application for deleting issue No. 3 was moved by respondent No. 3 at the behest of learned District Judge. Allahabad, who has also been arrayed as a party to this writ petition, by name. According to him, learned District Judge has passed a wholly unwarranted and illegal order during the pendency of the reference as the entire controversy between the parties revolved round issue No. 3. Dr. Padia urged that since respondent No. 3 is not owner of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has committed illegality in granting compensation in his favour and that, at best, the lease rights of respondent No. 3 were acquired, and consequently, he was not entitled to claim the entire amount of compensation as determined under the award. It was further urged that on account of the above controversy and to decide the reference completely and effectively, Issue No, 3 was framed to encompass the above controversy and now that the said issue has been deleted by learned District Judge, he would, of necessity, stop the opposite parties in the reference to cross-examine the witnesses and lead evidence on the point of ownership and interest in the land. Sri Ashok Khare, ieamed counsel for the respondent No. 3 repelled the aforesaid submission and supported the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, primarily on the ground that roving enquiry with regard to the ownership of the land cannot be permitted to be made in a reference under Section 18 of the Act and consequently, the learned District Judge was justified in scrapping issue No. 3.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. In the present petition, the moot point, which would arise for determination is as to what is the scope and the object of a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 in Part III of the Act of 1894 makes a provision for the reference to Court and it provides that any person interested, who has not accepted the award, may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter may be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of that compensation among the persons interested. Though the land is acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Act, the amount of compensation is paid out of the purse of the beneficiary, i.e.. for whose benefit the land is acquired. Therefore, with a view to protect the Interest of the beneficiary, a provision has been made in sub-section (2) of Section 50 that in any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The local authority or the company has been debarred from demanding a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
10. Sri Ashok Khare urged that law with regard to the scope and purpose of a reference under Section 18 is well-established, clear and admits of no ambiguity. It is well-embedded proposition of law that the enquiry in reference under Section 18 of the Act shall be confined only to the questions relating to the measurement of land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. In this connection, a reference was made to certain celebrated decisions. In the basic decision in Rai Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secretary of State, AIR 1930 PC 64, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Courts under the Act (Act of 1894) is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of Sections 18. 20 and 21. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once, therefore, it Is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone Is the 'matter' referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it. In Balarom CJiandra v. State of U. P.. 1995 LACC 518 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the reference court has no power to go behind the reference and declare the notification under Section 4 illegal. The Bombay High Court took the view in Special Land Acquisition Officer (1) Bombay v. Anil Krishna Biswas and another, 1993 LAC 292, that it is not permissible to enlarge the scope of reference to an item not covered by the application. A more specific decision on the point of the Apex Court is In Union of India and another u. Special Land Acquisition Officer and other. 1996 (II) LAL 422, in which it was observed that the award of the Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and, therefore, under law, the State cannot question the correctness of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State is bound by the same. Under these circumstances, they cannot impeach the award of the collector as being excessive of the prevailing market value as on the date of the notification. These observations were made with reference to a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. A reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court In Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and another u. Municipal Committee Jind and others, AIR 1988 SC 2139, in which expression 'person interested' with reference to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894 came to be interpreted and to another decision in Sri inder Parshad v. Union of India and others, JT 1988 (4} SC 440, in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the amount of compensation is to be apportioned between lessee and lessor, meaning thereby the lessee is also entitled to the amount of compensation determined by the Collector.
11. On the strength of the above decisions. Sri Ash ok Khare placing reliance on Prem RoJ v. Union of India. 1992 (2) LAL 161, maintained that the reference under Section 18 pending before learned District Judge. Allahabad, is entitled to priority attention as the reference cases have to be treated as a class by themselves and any attempt to throttle or impede their progress should be checked and dealt with a strong hand.
12. Dr. Padia, heavily relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Scmtosh Kumar and others v. Central Warehousing Corporation and another. AIR 1986 SC 1164, in which it was observed that there cannot be any possible doubt that the scheme of the Act is that apart from fraud, corruption and collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act may not be questioned in any proceeding either by the Government or by the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made. " Drawing Inspiration from the above decision. Dr. Padia emphatically asserted that in case of fraud, corruption and collusion, there can be no bar to raise and investigate the question of title, and, interest in the acquired property even In reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. I find it difficult to agree with Dr. Padia on the point for one simple reason that there are no allegations of fraud, corruption or collusion nor an enquiry into such matter is contemplated in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. If the enquiry, as suggested by Dr. Padia, is made permissible, It would opon up flood gates to all types of roving enquiries and manipulations at the stage of reference under Section 18 of the Act, thereby rendering the provision otiose.
13. There should be no hitch in coming to the conclusion that the evidence and enquiry under Section 18 is to be confined and limited to the specific aspects of the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst persons interested. The controversy of ownership of the acquired land or the interest therein cannot be raked up in reference proceedings. The role of the present petitioner in a reference under Section 18 of the Act pending before the District Judge is to be determined with reference to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act, which provides that the petitioner may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Except for this limited and restricted role, the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter into the various controversies to attack and challenge the validity of the award.
14. Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner also cited Himalaya Tiles and Marbes v. Freds Victor, AIR 1980 SC 1118 ; Union of India v. Sher Singh and others, 1993 SCC ID 608 : Smt. Shrishti Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555 ; S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna. AIR 1980 SC 193 ; Bhola Nath Yadav v. Joint Director 4th Region. 1998 ALJ 2233 and S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, in support of his various contentions. I have gone through the decisions referred to above. They are wide off the mark and do not apply on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, do not find it proper to discuss these decisions, at length, lest It may unnecessarily burden this judgment.
15. Another limb of the submission of Dr. Padla was that the learned District Judge has gone wrong in deleting an already framed issue in the reference as in view of the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 15 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only a wrong issue can be deleted and since the learned District Judge has found the issue to be unnecessary, he could not strike off the same. This submission of Dr. Padia is wide off the mark and is nothing but an attempt to indulge in hair-split. It would hardly matter whether an issue has been wrongly framed or is unnecessary. The Court has the power to delete an unnecessary issue at any stage of proceedings. In this connection, a reference may be made to two decisions of Karnataka High Court in Chikkaueeregowda v. Deve Gowda, AIR 1975 Kar 145 and Poovami Poojari v. Narayan Bhatt and another, AIR 1977 Kar 152. It was held that the Court has ample power to delete any issue framed by it at any time before the judgment is actually delivered. The observations made in Poovami Poojari's case (supra) are of some relevance to the present controversy. In that case, it was observed that where the Court finds an Issue framed by it was not necessary to decide the suit, it can delete the same and that the Court also should guard itself against the attempt and design of a party to delay unnecessary proceedings against him. Therefore, to say that the learned District Judge had no power or authority to scrap the Issue, which in his opinion was unnecessary, is wholly unjustified. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, and taken into consideration the scope and object of reference under Section 18 of the Act. 1 am also of the view that issue No. 3 was unnecessary and it was wrongly framed. The decision of the reference has to be confined well within the parameters provided by Section 18 itself. This Section excludes any type of enquiry about right, title and interest in the acquired land. The award on the point is final and the evidence which may be led by the parties has to be confined to the question of enhancement or otherwise of the amount of compensation, its apportionment and the persons to whom it is payable. If there is dispute about the measurement of land, it may also be decided in the reference. No evidence can be allowed to be led, which is foreign to the aforesaid questions.
16. In the result, I find that the learned District Judge has committed no Illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 18.11.1998 whereby he has deleted issue No. 3. The Intention of learned District Judge was to shut the petitioner from leading evidence with regard to the right, title and interest in the acquired property or to put the questions relating thereto in the cross-examination of respondent No. 3 and his witnesses. The reference has to be decided expeditiously, particularly. in view of the specific orders of this Court as well as the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premraj's case (supra). If the learned District Judge is taking up the case for decision on day to day basis, no motive can be imputed to him. The present petition Is misconceived and. it appears, was preferred with an avowed object to delay decision of the reference.
17. The writ petition, which has turned 'down to be devoid of any merit and substance, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Learned District Judge shall proceed with the reference on day to day basis and decide the same with all expedition.