1944 JTR(Mad) 154
1944 AIR(Mad) 539 ; 1944 57 LW 467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wadsworth, J.
Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer
Versus
Valia Raja of Chirahkkal Kovilagam
Decided On : 19.07.1944
The Court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act and emphasized that it does not have the power to remand the case to the Collector for a fresh enquiry and further award.
Jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act - Court's power to make an award and remand the case
Fact of the Case:
The Court's jurisdiction under Sections 18 to 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to enquire into objections to the Collector's award and make an award after hearing the relevant evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that it does not have the power to remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and a further award. The order of the District Judge declining to make an award involved a material irregularity, and the Court set it aside, directing the District Judge to hear the reference in full and pass an award in accordance with the law.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, power to remand the case, and material irregularity in the exercise of special jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that its jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act does not include the power to remand the case to the Collector for a fresh enquiry and further award. It also emphasized that an order involving a material irregularity in the exercise of special jurisdiction can be set aside.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, but in revision, the Court set aside the District Judge's order and directed a full hearing of the reference with the passing of an award in accordance with the law.
Jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act - Court's power to make an award and remand the case
Fact of the Case:
The Court's jurisdiction under Sections 18 to 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to enquire into objections to the Collector's award and make an award after hearing the relevant evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that it does not have the power to remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and a further award. The order of the District Judge declining to make an award involved a material irregularity, and the Court set it aside, directing the District Judge to hear the reference in full and pass an award in accordance with the law.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, power to remand the case, and material irregularity in the exercise of special jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that its jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act does not include the power to remand the case to the Collector for a fresh enquiry and further award. It also emphasized that an order involving a material irregularity in the exercise of special jurisdiction can be set aside.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, but in revision, the Court set aside the District Judge's order and directed a full hearing of the reference with the passing of an award in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Wadsworth, J.
1. The jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 18 to 28, Land Acquisition Act, is a jurisdiction for the Court to enquire into objections to the Collectors award and to make an award itself after hearing the relevant evidence. The Act does not empower the Court to remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and for a further award. Strictly speaking, there is no right of appeal against the order of the learned District Judge declining to make an award. But that order clearly involves a material irregularity in the exercise of the special jurisdiction. The appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections are dismissed but in revision, I set aside the order of the learned District Judge and direct him to hear the reference in full himself and pass an award in accordance with the law. No order is made as to costs here.