# State of U.P. & Ors v. Iftekhar Ahmad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 387 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-iftekhar-ahmad-anr-54376
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Consequently, impugned order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P4) passed by ld. Additional
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Rohtak dismissing the revision against the order dated
05.09.2011 (Annexure P3), passed by ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby petitioner
was directed to close down his shop of fodder cutting machine under Section 133 CrPC, is hereby
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of SDM, Rohtak with the direction to provide
opportunity to the parties, so as to produce evidence as per Section 138 CrPC and then dispose of
the matter in accordance with law."

17. In the present case, it is apparent that the Magistrate has failed to comply with the
mandatory provisions of Section 138 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has been passed without
affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Such action is contrary to the statutory
mandate as well as the settled legal position.

18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 is legally unsustainable and is hereby
set aside.

19. The writ petition is allowed.

20. The matter is remanded to the concerned Magistrate to decide afresh, after affording due
opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, in
accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 120
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 387 of 2026

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Iftekhar Ahmad & Anr. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Reference Court, while deciding a reference under the Act of 2013, has jurisdiction to set aside
the award of the Collector and remand the matter for fresh determination of compensation?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), 6, 17, 18, - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 74:- First
Appeal filed under Section 74 of the Act, 2013 - for seeking quashing of the judgment of the Reference Court,
whereby the Collector's award was set-aside and matter was remanded back - Land acquired in 2010 -
compensation awarded in 2019 - challenged by landowners in reference court - reference Court exceeded its
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Iftekhar Ahmad & Anr.
121
jurisdiction by setting-aside and remanding instead of determining compensation itself - court finds that,
Reference Court is a court of original jurisdiction, not appellate, hence cannot exercise remand powers -
Power of remand is not vested in Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Act of 2013 - held -
Reference Court can only affirm or enhance compensation, not set-aside Collector's award - hence, impugned
judgment is unsustainable in law, accordingly, Appeal allowed - with direction to the Reference Court to
decide reference on merits within six months, without unnecessary adjournments.
(Para - 8, 12, 13, 14)
First Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rahmullah case (First Appeal No.670 of 1992, decided on 23.07.2013, Allahabad High Court)
Chimmanlal Hargovind Das v. SLAO, Puna and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 (Supreme Court)
Special Tahsildar, LA Railways, Vishakhapatnam v. Sri Varabalakshmi Narasimhaswamivaru, 1973 SCC OnLine
AP 44 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Gabbar Singh and Ors. v. Collector, Gwalior and Ors., 2007 SCC OnLine MP 55 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

LIST OF ACTS
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Areca nuts - Customs Seizure - Indian Origin - Arbitrary and Malafide - Reason to Believe - Govt Lab Reports -
Inconclusive Findings - coordinate bench - Food Safety - fairly good - fit for human consumption - CRCL Test
Report - ARDF Report - Jurisdictional Error - Writ Tax - dispose of.

CASE ARISING FROM
Appeal filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act against judgment dated 25.03.2023 in L.A.R. No.1 of 2021
(Iftekhar Ahmad & another v. State of U.P. & others), passed by Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Basti.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Amit Manohar.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Indrakesh Kumar Sharma (brief held by Sri Anirudh Singh)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State under Section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Basti in Land Acquisition Case No.1 of
2021 (Iftekhar Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the Reference Court has
partly allowed the reference and has set aside the award of the Collector dated 13.11.2019 and
remanded the matter to the Collector for determining the compensation in accordance with the
observations made in the judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that in the instant case, land for
construction of the Maina Rajwaha in village Tenua Grunt, Pargana Bansi West, Tehsil Itwa,
District Siddharth Nagar was acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 dated 27.01.2010, declaration under Section 6 was made on 09.08.2010 and
the possession of the land was taken under urgency clause under Section 17 of the above Act on
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28.09.2010 and the award of the Collector was made on 13.11.2019, whereby compensation of
Rs.1,14,39,264/- was awarded to the claimants on the basis of exemplar on record.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the award of the Collector was challenged by the
land owners for enhancement of compensation by filing reference, which has been allowed by the
impugned judgment by the Reference Court on the ground that the Collector should have
determined compensation under the Act of 2013, which came into effect from 01.01.2014. On this
ground, the award of the Collector dated 13.11.2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded to
the Collector for determination of compensation afresh in accordance with the observations made
by the Reference Court.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in no circumstances, the Reference Court could have
set aside the award of the Collector and remanded the matter to the Collector for determining the
compensation afresh. It was further submitted that either the Collector could have affirmed the
award or enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners, but in no circumstances the award
of the Collector could have been set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied
upon the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No.670 of 1992 (State of UP and others vs.
Rahmullah) decided on 23.07.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent also very fairly accepts that the Reference
Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the award of the Collector and remanding the
matter to him for determining the compensation afresh. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court should have itself determined the compensation as per the provisions of the Act of
2013, if it was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. I have heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anirudh Singh
holding brief of Sri Indrakesh Kumar Sharma and perused the impugned judgment and documents
submitted with the appeal. Appeal is admitted.

7. From the above facts, it is evident that the Reference Court has set aside the award of the
Collector dated 13.11.2019 on the ground that the Collector has determined the compensation in
accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the compensation should
have been determined under the Act of 2013, which came into effect from 01.01.2014 and on this
basis the Reference Court has set aside the award of the Collector and remanded the matter to the
Collector for deciding the compensation afresh.

8. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in a complete Code in itself, containing provisions as to
how the land is to be acquired and how the award is to be made by the Collector as well as how the
award of the Collector can be challenged and what are the factors, which are to be considered for
determining the compensation. The Land Acquisition Act only mentions that if the land owner is
not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, then it can get the matter
referred by the Collector to the Reference Court, which will then determine the compensation in
accordance with law. The 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. It is
apparent that the power of remand is only exercised by an appellate court, but it is well settled that
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Iftekhar Ahmad & Anr.
123
the Reference Court is not an appellate court and is only an original court for determining the
compensation in land acquisition cases. In view of this, the power of remand could not have been
exercised by the Reference Court.

9. This Court in the case of Rahmullah (supra) has precisely dealt this controversy and after
relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chimmanlal Hargovinddas vs. SLAO,
Puna and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751, has held that the reference under Section 18 of the Act is not
an appeal against the award of the SLAO. It is in the nature of original proceedings, wherein the
claimant is in the position of a plaintiff, who is supposed to establish that the price offered for his
acquired land is inadequate by producing material evidence before the Reference Court. It was
specifically held by this Court that the Reference Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction,
which does not exercise appellate powers while deciding references under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, as such, it is denuded of any power to remand the matter.

10. Similarly, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Special Tahsildar, Land
Acquisition Railways, Vishakhapatnam vs. Sri Varabalakshmi Narasimhaswamivaru the deity of
Simachalam, represented by the hereditary trustee the Rajah of Vizianagaram 1973 SCC OnLine
AP 44, held as under:-

"I have no doubt that a court to which a reference is made under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act has no power to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer. The
jurisdiction given to the court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent
provisions is a special jurisdiction and the power of remand, if any, must be found within the
statute. There is no such power to be discovered in any of the provisions. Nor is there any inherent
power of remand such as an Appellate Court might have since the Court functioning under the
Land Acquisition Act does not function as an appellate Court, If authority is necessary for the
proposition that a Court to which, a reference is made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
has no power of remand, it is to be found in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer v. Villa Raja
[AIR 1944 Mad 539.] In that case Wadsworth, J., held that the Act did not empower the Court to
remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and for a further award.

In the present case the reference was properly made. All that the lower Court said was that
compensation for the land should have been determined first and then-apportioned between the
melwaram-dar and kudiwaramdar instead of compensation for the melwaram and kudiwaram
interests being separately determined as was supposed to have been done by the Land Acquisition
Officer. If the lower Court thought that the Land Acquisition Officer went wrong in determining
the value of the melwaram and kudiwaram interests separately then it was upto the lower Court to
value the land as such and apportion the compensation towards the two interests. The learned
Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case for that purpose." (emphasis supplied)

11. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Gabbar Singh and Ors. vs. Collector,
Gwalior and Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine MP 55, held as under:-

'10. After hearing parties and perusing the award I find that the Land Acquisition Officer has
passed the award in respect of the land only, so that the claimants can get compensation without
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any delay. He has specifically mentioned that he is not passing award in respect of crops and trees
standing on the land, as it will delay the matter of passing the award in respect of the land and
therefore he reserved his rights to pass supplementary award in respect of the trees and the crops
standing on the land.

11. Even otherwise if the District Court come to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the
Land Acquisition Officer to pass award in respect of the trees and crops then he could have to be
passed award for the trees and crops standing on the land as he has already recorded evidence on
this point. Therefore, he has committed error in remanding the matter. Thus, I find that the District
Court has committed error in treating the award as interim award.

12. Moreover, as per the provisions of law, discussed above the District Court has no power of
remand while hearing the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act because it is a
reference Court and not an appellate Court. (emphasis supplied)

12. Similarly, 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 and remand the matter to the Collector for deciding it afresh.

13. It is apparent that the Reference Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction by setting aside the
award of the Collector and remanding the matter to it for deciding it afresh, which is contrary to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Act of 2013. In no circumstances
whatsoever, the Reference Court could have passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable in
law.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award
dated 25.03.2023 is set aside and L.A.R. No.1 of 2021 stands restored on its original number before
the Reference Court.

15. The Reference Court is directed to decide the reference on merits in accordance with law
after hearing the parties within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order, without affording any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 124
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Second Appeal No. 1905 of 1978

Smt. Qamrunnisa & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Tamizan & Ors. ...Respondents