Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.@mdashThe land of the petitioner was acquired by the State of West Bengal for construction of housing estate by the
West Bengal Housing Board. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the award passed by the Collector. Therefore, she requested the Collector to
make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the learned Land Acquisition Judge.
2. There were other references at the instances of the other owners. All the said references were registered as L. A. Case No. 3 to 35, 38 and 39
of 2001 (V).
3. Shrimati Shyamali Das applied for her addition in the present reference case, inter alia, on the ground that she has been the descendant of Rani
Rashmoni and she has been the administrator of the estate of Rani Rashmoni.
4. Learned Additional District Judge, Fourteenth Court at Alipore, by Order No. 14 dated June 22, 2004, rejected her application for addition of
party. The learned Judge, inter alia, held that the petitioner was not a person interested in the proceeding and her remedy, if any, has to be sought
for before the Land Acquisition Collector or in the Civil Court.
5. By the judgment dated August 26, 2005, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge allowed the reference cases and, inter alia, directed
enhancement of compensation.
6. On September 12, 2005 Shrimati Shyamali Das and her son applied for setting aside of the judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge passed in
the said references with prayers for stay of all further proceedings. They claimed their shares from the compensation money.
7. The learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Alipore entertained the said application for setting aside of the judgment dated August 26,
2005 and directed the office to register the application as a miscellaneous case.
8. Accordingly, the office registered the application as Miscellaneous Case No. 4/2005.
9. By Order No. 114 dated September 12, 2005, the learned Judge directed that the payment with regard to L. A. Case No. 3 of 2001 (V) be
kept in abeyance until further order.
10. The records were put up before the learned Judge on September 12, 2005 and the claimant submitted before the learned Judge that the order
keeping payment in abeyance would harm her. The learned Judge by Order No. 115 dated September 15, 2005 clarified that the order dated
September 12, 2005 would not affect the process of deposit of the compensation amount in Court as required by law.
11. By Order No. 116 dated September 17, 2005 the learned Judge fixed the hearing of the petition on October 6, 2005, but declined to vacate
the ex parte interim order of stay granted earlier.
12. It seems that the learned Judge has not applied his judicial mind. An application for recalling of the judgment dated August 26,2005 passed by
the learned Land Acquisition Judge was filed by an outsider and the learned Judge mechanically directed the office to register such application as
miscellaneous case. He, also, granted ex parte order of stay. When it was pointed to him that the application was not maintainable, he fixed the
hearing to some other day, but declined to vacate the ex parte interim order of stay.
13. It is settled law that if a reference to the Land Acquisition Judge has already been made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court
cannot add any party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar
and Another, , inter alia, observes that under the Land Acquisition Act the matter goes to the Court only upon a reference made by the Collector
and there is no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. The Court can adjudicate upon the
matter referred to it, but the Court is certainly not invested with jurisdiction to consider a matter not directly connected with it and this is not a
matter of mere technicality.
14. In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and Another, , the Supreme Court of India
observes that it is well-established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it u/s 18 or 30 of the said Act by the
Collector and the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The Reference Court cannot widen
the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters, which are not referred to it.
15. Shrimati Shyamali Das applied for her addition during the pendency of the reference case. Her prayer was rejected. The order becomes final.
16. I cannot comprehend as to how she can file an application for recalling of the judgment.
17. The application filed by Shrimati Shyamali Das and her son is an abuse of the process of Court, calculated to obstruct the due course of
judicial proceeding and the administration of justice. The Court cannot be mere spectator of its process being abused. This Court has an inherent
jurisdiction to strike out the pleadings.
18. The Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, , observes that an activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. The Trial Court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is, also, resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them.
19. I am of the firm opinion that the application for recalling of the judgment and order dated August 26, 2005 filed by Shrimati Shyamali Das and
her son is wholly misconceived and a mala fide application. The learned Judge ought not to have entertained such application. The application filed
by Shrimati Shyamali Das and her son for recalling of the judgment dated August 26,2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is rejected
and consequently, all interim orders are vacated.
20. The revisional application is, thus, allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only.
21. Mr. Mani Shankar Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate, submits that he has filed an application for addition of party in connection with this
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under C.A.N. No. 9227 of 2005. As I have disposed of the main revisional application,
the application for addition of parties stated to have filed by Mr. Mani Shankar Chattopadhyay''s clients become infructuous and is, accordingly,
rejected as infructuos.
22. Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) of this Court be given to the learned Advocates appear in
the parties on their usual undertaking.