Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:— This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and is preferred against an award dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the learned L.A Judge, Purulia, in L.A Reference Case No. 43 of 1987 thereby allowing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by enhancing the compensation for acquisition of the land of the referring claimant from the one arrived at by agreement of parties in terms of Section 11(2) of the said Act. While arriving at such conclusion, the learned Tribunal below held that the agreement between the claimant and the Governor of West Bengal as to the amount of compensation of the acquired land could not have any binding effect and the claimant could not be estopped from demanding further compensation according to the market value. It may not be out of place to mention here that according to the claimant, the agreement between the parties was vitiated due to coercion, duress, etc.
2. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present appeal.
3. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable for enhancement of the compensation arrived at between the parties by way of agreement between the parties in terms of Section 11(2) of the said Act.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through materials on record; we are of the view that if an agreement is entered into between the parties in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act as regards the fixation of an amount of compensation payable for the acquisition of the land under the Act, no reference in terms of Section 18 is maintainable for enhancement of such amount. It appears that this point has been already decided by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2204 : (2005 AIR— Kant HCR 1086) and some earlier decisions referred to therein.
5. It is now settled law that reference, as provided in Section 18 of the Act, is a creature of Statute and such reference is not permissible in respect of an award based on agreement in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act.
6. If after entering into an agreement in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act, the owner of the land wants to challenge such agreement as an outcome of fraud, coercion, etc. the appropriate remedy of such owner lies before the ordinary forum prescribed under law for avoiding a contract or before the Writ Court if the ingredients of Article 226 of the Constitution of India are present; but a Court of Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot adjudicate such question.
7. We, thus, find that the Tribunal below exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the award passed on agreement between the parties in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act in a proceeding under Section 18 of the said Act. We, therefore, set aside the award impugned only on that ground. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the award impugned is set aside.
8. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into the question whether such agreement was really vitiated by duress or coercion, as contended by the claimant.
9. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.:—
10.I agree.
Order accordingly.