District Judge Acting As Reference Court Under Land Acquisition Act Functions As Civil Court: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a District Judge hearing a reference under the Land Acquisition Act functions as a Civil Court and passes judicial orders. Consequently, such orders cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 but can only be examined under the Court's supervisory jurisdiction, the court explained.The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed against an order of a Single Judge who had set aside a direction of the District Judge, Ramban, passed in proceedings arising out of a land acquisition reference relating to the apportionment of compensation.A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parthar held that the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act acts as a Civil Court and therefore its judicial orders cannot be assailed through writ jurisdiction. The Bench observed, “Reference Court under the Act acts as a Civil Court and its orders are judicial orders.”Background:The dispute arose between two brothers regarding land situated at Tehsil Ramban. The land had been acquired by the State for a public purpose. Owing to a dispute concerning apportionment of compensation, the Collector Land Acquisition referred the matter to the District Judge, Ramban under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990.During the pendency of the reference proceedings, the appellant moved an application before the Reference Court seeking release of 80 percent of the compensation amount deposited by the Collector. The District Judge allowed the application and released ₹38,10,640 in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by this direction, the second respondent approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Reference Court, directing the appellant to redeposit the released amount before the Reference Court. Challenging the Single Judge's order, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.Court's Observations:At the outset, the Court examined the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent argued that no appeal would lie against an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The Bench referred to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent governing appeals within the High Court and noted that the provision expressly bars an intra-court appeal against orders passed by a Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.The appellant, however, contended that although the petition before the Single Judge had been filed under Section 104, the nature of the order indicated that the Single Judge had effectively exercised writ jurisdiction analogous to Article 226 of the Constitution.Rejecting this contention, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, which clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 and can only be scrutinised under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.The Bench further examined the nature of proceedings before a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act and held that the District Judge hearing a reference under Sections 18 or 31 of the Act functions as a court and not as a persona designata.In this regard, the Court relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court in Custodian Evacuee Property v. Amar Nath & Ors. (1981 KLJ 371), wherein it had been held that the District Judge adjudicating a land acquisition reference conclusively determines questions relating to title or apportionment of compensation and therefore exercises the jurisdiction of a court.The Court observed that the Reference Court decides substantive rights between the parties and its decisions constitute judicial determinations. Consequently, the orders passed by such court are judicial orders of a civil court.Once this position was established, the Court held that such judicial orders cannot be challenged under Article 226. The appropriate remedy against such orders lies only within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.Since the Single Judge had exercised supervisory jurisdiction while setting aside the order of the Reference Court, the Division Bench held that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent barred the maintainability of a Letters Patent The High Court concluded that a District Judge functioning as a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act acts as a Civil Court and the orders passed in such proceedings are judicial orders. Therefore, such orders cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and can only be examined under the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.In view of this legal position, the Court held that the Letters...

District Judge Acting As Reference Court Under Land Acquisition Act Functions As Civil Court: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

District Judge Acting As Reference Court Under Land Acquisition Act Functions As Civil Court: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers