Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard learned Standing counsel for the State of U.P. Sri A.K. Malhotra has appeared for UPSEB/U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited
for whose benefit the land was acquired but was not specifically impleaded.
No one has appeared for respondent despite revised call.
The appeal is under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') against the judgment, order and award dated
30.3.1989 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Jaunpur in LAR No. 165 of 1985.
The land of village Muradganj, ParganaHaveli, Tehsil and District Jaunpur was acquired for establishing 220 KVA Electricity Power Station vide
notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 5.11.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short SLAO) made an award dated 29.5.1982.
The claimant respondent not satisfied by the compensation offered by the SLAO preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference
has been decided by the impugned judgment, order and award and the matter has been remanded to the SLAO for redetermination of the
compensation admissible to the claimant respondent.
The remand has been made in view of the award of the reference court passed in LAR No. 73 of 1985 (Shamullah Vs. State) in connection with
same acquisition and the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Ram Saran in favour of one Devi Prasad Upadhyaya, Advocate.
It is important to note that from the same acquisition several references were preferred which were separately decided. In First Appeal No. 129 of
1988 (District Magistrate Vs. Majid and another) arsing from LAR No. 167 of 1985, the reference court had enhanced compensation on the basis
of the abovereferred sale deed executed by Ram Saran in favour of Devi Prasad Upadhyaya but without the said sale deed having been produced
in evidence.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence or any other material on record to prove that the award of the SLAO was inadequate and that the claimants
were entitle to higher compensation, the appeal was allowed and the judgment, order and award of the reference court was set aside.
On the basis of the judgment, order and award of the reference court passed in the above case of Majid, several other references were decided
and the appeals arising therefrom have all been allowed by me including the one arising from the decision in LAR No. 73 of 1985 (Shamulla Vs.
State) by a separate judgment of date as the enhancement was based upon the decision rendered in reference of Majid which was set aside.
In view of the above, both the grounds on which the remand has been made have ceased to exist.
This apart,the power of remand is only available to the appellate court under Section 107 read with Order XLI Rule 23/23 A CPC and the said
power is not vested in any court seized of the matter in its original jurisdiction. it is settled vide Chimmanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1692 that a reference under Section 18 of the Act is not an appeal against an award of the SLAO but is in the
nature of original proceedings wherein the claimant is in a position of the plaintiff who is supposed to establish that the price offered for his acquired
land is inadequate by producing material evidence before the reference court.
In the light of the above decision, the reference court acts as court of original jurisdiction and does not exercises appellate powers while deciding
references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is denuded of any power to remand the matter.
In view of the above, the order of remand made by the reference court is patently without jurisdiction and is unsustainable in law for both the
reasons indicated above. The impugned judgment, order and award of the reference court 20.3.1989 passed in LAR No. 165 of 1985 is set aside
and the appeal is allowed.
