P.C. Misra, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in which the court has granted compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 3500/-per acre for nearly 35 acres of land in favour of the present respondent.
2. The undisputed facts are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 2-5-1975 and the lands acquired under the said notification comprised of a tank as well as waste lands. The respondent claimed to be entitled to the compensation on the basis that he had obtained the said lands by way of lesse from the ex-intermediary sometime in the year 1944, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,409/-for 15 acres of land on the assumption that 15 acres were acquired under the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre so far as the tank is concerned, and at the rate of Rs. 700/- per acre in respect of the fallow land. The respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Act praying for a reference to be made to the Court for the purpose of determination of the quantum of compensation and also claiming compensation for the balance 20 acres of land which were covered under the notification under Section 4(1) and for which no compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. A reference to the Court was made pursuant to the said application.
2A. Before the Court the present appellant challenged the locus standi andentitlement to the compensation by the petitioner saying that the lease by the ex-intermediary was not a permanent lease, but was for a period of 15 years expiring sometime in the year 1959. According to the appellant, the estate vested in the year 1953-54 as a consequence of which the rights of the lessee, if any, got extinguished and the property vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus according to the appellant, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever, as he had no interest in the lands after vesting. It was next contended by the appellant before the Court that assuming that the leasehold right of the respondent did not vest nor got extinguished by the operation of vesting notification, he was at best entitled to continue to possess the land as a lessee for the un expired portion of 15 years after the date of vesting and by the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act there was no surviving right with the respondent so as to be entitled to compensation.
3. The respondent in the court below, in view of the points taken by the present appellant took the stand that even assuming that the lease had expired after the vesting he would be a tenant holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the T. P. Act and, therefore, be entitled to compensation. The learned trial Court has not arrived at a definite conclusion as to whether the lease was a permanent one and was for a limited period of 15 years. He has found fault with both the parties for not having produced the relevant documents which could hold for determination of the period of lease. The learned court below, however, proceeded that assuming that the lease was for a period of 15 years and had expired after the vesting of the estate, the respondent would still be regarded as a tenant holding over in respect of the property and in that view of the matter would be entitled to compensation. He held that the proper compensation for the lands in question should be Rs. 3,500/- per acre and that the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in awarding compensation for 15 acres of land though the total extent of land acquired under the notification was 35.05 acres. He, therefore,awarded compensation for the entire land covered by the notification,
4. In this appeal, the Land Acquisition Officer as appellant has raised the following questions for consideration.
(i) The respondent having failed to produce the original lease deed, the terms of the lease as well as his rights over the land could not be determined in his favour. In the absence of the original document the Court should have concluded that the lease was merely for a period of 15 years and not a permanent lease in which event either the petitioner's right would be taken to have vested in the Government by virtue of the vesting notification or if the leasehold right did not vest, he was merely entitled to continue as a lessee for the unexpired portion of the lease. He would, therefore, not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever, as he had no subsisting interest by the date of acquisition.
(ii) In the event the Court holds that the respondent continued as a lessee for the unexpired portion of the lease, he cannot be regarded as a tenant holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act as admittedly he was dispossessed from the land sometime in the year 1948 as admitted by him.
(iii) The rent receipts granted in favour of the respondent having the stamp 'without prejudice' could not be construed as conferring any right of tenancy with the respondent as has been erroneously held by the learned Court below.
(iv) The Land Acquisition Officer having awarded compensation for 15 acres of land only, the Court could not determine the compensation and directed payment thereof in respect of 35 acres of land.
5. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the points urged before us, learned counsel appearing for the respondent strenuously contended that the objection as to the entitlement of the petitioner to the compensation awarded should not have been entertained by the Court in a reference underSection 18 of the Act at the instance of the respondent. He has further argued on merits to establish that the learned Court below rightly held that the respondent was entitled to compensation and the rate of compensation assessed by him is based on sufficient evidence which cannot be assailed in this appeal. This takes us to examine as to whether the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to compensation was open to be canvassed before the Court below in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the respondent.
6. Admittedly the present respondent was accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer as the person entitled to compensation and as a matter of fact the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in his favour. The respondent being dissatisfied with the rate of compensation awarded and also as to the extent of land for which he was entitled to compensation filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for a reference to be made to the Court. As a matter of fact, the reference under Section 18 is in essence an objection against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. In other words the Land Acquisition Collector whose award was objected to under Section 18 of the Act had himself decided that the respondent would be entitled to the compensation, the award being on the basis that the respondent had interest in the land. After passing of the award the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be categorised as a person who was dissatisfied with the award nor could he prefer an objection to the award passed by himself. The only point which was covered by the reference was as to whether the rate of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector represents correct compensation for the land acquired and as to whether the total extent of land under the notification being 35 acres, in which the respondent was interested, the award oi compensation for 15 acres only was valid. From the language of Section 18 of the Act and the terms of reference made to the Court, it is abundantly clear that the question as to the entitlement of the respondent to thecompensation was beyond the scope of reference. In other words, the Court answering the reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act was not called upon to decide as to whether the present respondent had interest in the land for the acquisition of which compensation was to be determined. In this view of the matter our conclusion is irresistible that the Court was not entitled to entertain an objection in that behalf. Therefore, the further points raised by the appellant in this Court as to the term of the lease, the effect of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and that of the rent receipts granted in favour of the respondent with a stamp of 'without prejudice' are irrelevant for consideration.
7. The only other point which remains for consideration is as to whether the award of compensation for 35 acres of land by the Court is assailable. On a reference to the gazette notification (Ext. M) we find that two plots, namely, plot No. 768/1121 measuring 33.61 acres and plot No. 822/1122 measuring 1.44 decimals were included in the said notification. The petitioner claims interest in respect of these two plots the total area of which comes to A.35.05 decimals of land. The award of compensation in respect of 15 acres of land by the Land Acquisition Collector was, therefore a mistake which the Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Act was entitled to rectify. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the award of compensation in respect of 35 acres of land by the Court was illegal.
8. We accordingly find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. It, however, requires specific mention about the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act during the pendency of this appeal. This Court has decided that apart from the compensation awarded, the landholder whose lands have been acquired is also entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (vide judgment delivered on 23-8-1988 in Misc. Case No. 89 of 1988 arising out of F.A. No. 140/73). According to the amended provisions of the said Act, the respondent would also be entitledto additional solatium and higher rate of interest which should also be calculated and paid to him. The Land Acquisition Officer should therefore, quantify the compensation accordingly and pay the same to the respondent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pasayat, J.
9. I agree.