Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court

"Act does not vest the Reference Court with the power to set aside the award of the Collector and remand back the matter for determining the compensation afresh." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a Reference Court adjudicating land acquisition disputes exercises original jurisdiction and fundamentally lacks the statutory power to remand a matter back to the Collector.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the Reference Court can merely affirm the award or enhance the compensation, but it has no jurisdiction to set aside the Collector's award and order a fresh determination.

The State government acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Collector passed an award granting compensation of over Rs. 1.14 crore to the landowners. Dissatisfied with the amount, the landowners filed a reference seeking an enhancement of the compensation. The Reference Court subsequently set aside the Collector's award, holding that compensation should have been determined under the new 2013 Act, and remanded the matter to the Collector for a fresh decision. Aggrieved by this remand order, the State preferred the present appeal before the High Court under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

The primary question before the court was whether a Reference Court adjudicating a claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 possesses the jurisdiction to set aside the Collector's award and remand the matter for fresh determination.

Reference Court Exercises Original, Not Appellate Jurisdiction

The High Court emphasized that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a complete code detailing the procedure for land acquisition, the making of an award, and the mechanism to challenge it. The bench noted that a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation can get the matter referred to the Reference Court to determine compensation in accordance with the law. Clarifying the nature of this forum, the court stated that the power of remand is inherently an appellate power, which the Reference Court does not possess.

No Statutory Power To Remand Exists

The court held that the Reference Court operates strictly as a court of original jurisdiction and not as an appellate authority over the Collector. Because the statute does not expressly vest it with appellate powers, the Reference Court cannot send a case back to the acquiring authority. The bench categorically ruled that "it is well settled that the Reference Court is not an appellate court and is only an original court for determining the compensation in land acquisition cases."

Reliance On Supreme Court And High Court Precedents

To substantiate its ruling, the High Court relied upon its own earlier decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Rahmullah, which was guided by the Supreme Court's verdict in Chimmanlal Hargovinddas vs. SLAO. The bench observed that proceedings under Section 18 are original in nature where the claimant acts as a plaintiff who must prove the inadequacy of compensation through material evidence. Following these precedents, the court reiterated that the Reference Court "is denuded of any power to remand the matter."

"In the Act of 2013, the Reference Court can only affirm the award of the Collector or enhance the compensation awarded by it, but it cannot set aside the award of the Collector."

Courts From Other Jurisdictions Echo Similar Principles

The bench also drew support from judgments of the Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh High Courts to solidify the doctrinal position. Citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Special Tahsildar vs. Sri Varabalakshmi Narasimhaswamivaru, the court noted that the jurisdiction under Section 18 is a special jurisdiction. The bench adopted the view that the power of remand must be expressly found within the statute itself, and no inherent power of remand exists for a court functioning under the land acquisition framework. The court also cited the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in Gabbar Singh vs. Collector to reinforce this limitation.

Reference Court Must Determine Compensation Itself

Addressing the Reference Court's finding that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should apply, the High Court noted that even if this were true, the lower court ought to have calculated the compensation itself. The bench noted that even under the 2013 Act, the power of remand does not exist. The court observed that counsels for both the State and the respondent-landowners fairly conceded that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the remand order.

Concluding the matter, the High Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Reference Court, declaring it unsustainable in law. The land acquisition reference was restored to its original number, with a strict direction to the Reference Court to decide the matter on merits within six months without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026