Land acquisition is the power of the union or a state government in India to acquire private land for the purpose of industrialisation, development of infrastructural facilities or urbanisation of the private land, and to compensate the affected land owners for their rehabilitation and resettlement.

Land Acquisition: 35 Judgments of Supreme Court, 2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ.

2021(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 223

National Highways Act, 1956 Sections 2 (2) and 3A (1) Acquisition of land – Mutation – Restoration of land in favour of landowners – High Court has directed concerned revenue authorities to restore mutation entries in names of landowner which were effected in favour of acquiring body – Held, Merely on basis of notification under Section 3A of Act neither acquiring body nor NHAI had come in possession of concerned land nor land had vested in them, so as to alter mutation entry in their favour – Direction of High Court needs no interference.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952, Sections 3 , 7 and 8 – Defence of India Act, Section 30 – Constitution of India, 1950 Article 300A Right to Property – Suit properties requisitioned in 1963, under the Defence of India Act – Amendment to the Requisition Act had the effect of creating a deeming fiction that requisitions under the DIA were deemed to be under the Requisitioning Act – Successive amendments to the Requisitioning Act, the period of requisition continued; it finally ended in 1987 – Held that the Legal effect of requisitioning immovable property is temporary for the period the requisition order is in operation – Impugned judgment committed an error in refusing relief to the appellants – 33 years after cessation of the Union’s legal possession is a long enough time, even in India, to be kept away from one’s property – Union directed to hand back possession of the suit lands – Appellants can seek compensation.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 2 (47) and 45 – Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land – Capital gain – Date of charging – Transfer of capital asset i.e. land acquired for purposes of Section 45 of Act was complete on date of award and not on date of notification for acquisition under Section 4 of Act of 1894 – Hence, capital gains arising out of such acquisition have rightly been charged to tax with reference to date of award that fall in previous year in which transfer took place.

Are you a Lawyer?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 2 (47) and 45 – Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land – Capital gain – Date of charging – Expression “transfer” in relation to capital asset is of substantially wide amplitude so as to include sale, exchange or relinquishment of capital asset; or extinguishment of any rights therein; or compulsory acquisition thereof – Contents of the then existing Section 45 of Act of 1961 read with relevant definition would make it clear that such profits or gains are chargeable to income-tax as capital gains – By fiction, it has been provided that such profits or gains shall be deemed to be income of previous year in which transfer took place.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 30 and 31 Acquisition – Setting aside order of compensation – Claimants were found entitled for compensation on ground of being lease holder in land acquired – They claimed to have obtained land on lease from Gram Panchayat – Suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration that judgment and decree was obtained by playing fraud – Plaintiff pleaded that there was no lease in fact and same was created by creating resolution in collusion with ex-Pradhan of Panchayat – Held, In view of rival claims for compensation matter was referred and it was held that respondents were entitled to compensation to extent of 87% whereas Gaon Sabha was held entitled only to extent of 13% – Said judgment has become final been not questioned in any appeal – Material placed and evidence produced show that land in question was `banjar’ having “shora” and Gram Panchayat wanted to give said land on lease to make same fit for cultivation – Such proposal was agreed to by all members of Gaon Sabha and proposal as such was sent to Dy. Director, Panchayat for approval – Only after receipt of approval from Dy. Director, Panchayat, land was auctioned for grant of leasehold rights – Lease was granted to claimants being highest bidder – Revenue records reveal that name of claimants were entered as possessor and cultivator – No perversity in finding of High Court – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

2020(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 522

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 30 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 11 Finding of Reference Court – Principle of Res judicata – Land acquired and compensation passed by Collector – Three sets of claims were raised, one by plaintiff as owners of land , another by lessee of land and certain other persons in occupation of hutments on land acquired – Reference Court held defendant not entitled for compensation as defendant had not paid rent for 12 months and as such lease had come to end – Finding returned by Reference Court was for limited purpose i.e. not to accept lesee’s claim for compensation – Such finding cannot be binding on parties in suit for possession based on title or as lessor against lessee – Finding not to operate as res judicata – Finding of High Court not sustainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 18 – Acquisition of land – Reduction of electrical installation and re-installation on ground of depreciated market value of electrical installation – Valuation certificate and evidence of PW, Reference Court awarded Rs. 3,86,867/- towards dismantling charges in respect of electrical, mechanical and re-installation – During course of dismantling and re-installation, every possibility of electrical installation being damaged – Therefore, High Court not justified in reducing amount of Rs. 3,86,867/- to Rs. 2,39,000/- on the ground of depreciated market value of electrical installation – Amount of Rs. 3,86,867/- awarded by Reference Court affirmed – Hence, compensation modified.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 18 – Acquisition of land – 40% deduction towards development cost – Market value and deduction for development – Held, Rule of one-third deduction towards development is general – Since land was acquired for construction of Hiwra Dam project, much of development like in case of a layout for housing colony not required – Thus, 40% deduction made by High Court higher – 20% deduction for development cost reasonable – Therefore, taking entire land 2,61,300 sq.ft. as non-agricultural and making 20% deduction for development cost, value of land comes to Rs. 14,42,707/-.

Are you a Lawyer?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 3 (2) – Bangalore Development Authority Act, Section 19 (1) – Construction of road – Environment clearance – MoEF issued notification dated 27.1,1994 imposing restrictions and prohibitions on expansion and modernisation of any activity or new project unless prior EC was granted – 2006 Notification came into force obliged every project proponent to seek prior EC for projects and activities which were listed in Schedule to Notification – Final notification for acquisition of proposed land for construction of High way was issued by appellant authority on 29 June 2007 following grant of government sanction – Notification for acquisition being after coming into force of 2006 Notification – Contention urged by appellant that project commenced prior to coming into force of 2006 Notification cannot be accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 Lapse of proceedings – Decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 is overruled and all other decisions in which said decision followed, are also overruled – Decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following same are also overruled – In (Indore Development Authority v Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Ors aspect with respect to proviso to Section 24(2) and whether `or’ has to be read as `nor’ or as `and’ was not placed for consideration – Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 Lapse of proceedings – Revival of right – Section 24 does not revive right to challenge those proceedings which have been concluded – Legality of those judgments and orders cannot be reopened or questioned under guise of provisions of Section 24(2) – Courts cannot invalidate acquisitions , which stood concluded – No claims in that regard can be entertained and agitated as they have not been revived – There has to be legal certainty where infrastructure has been created or has been developed partially, and investments have been made, especially when land has been acquired long back.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Interim order – Exclusion of period – Litigant who takes his chances cannot be permitted to gain by delaying tactics – Period for which interim order has operated has to be excluded for counting period of 5 years under Section 24(2).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 31 (1) Higher Compensation – Entitlement – In case compensation has not been paid or deposited with respect to majority of land holdings – All beneficiaries are entitled for higher compensation – In case money has not been deposited with Land Acquisition Collector or in treasury or in court with respect to majority of landholdings, consequence has to follow of higher compensation as per proviso to Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 31 (1) Compensation – Deposit in treasury in place of Court – Causes no prejudice to landowner – Their interest is safeguarded and their money is safe – Proceeding under Old Act 1894 will not lapse.

Are you a Lawyer?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 31 (1) Compensation – Payment – In case person has been tendered compensation and he refuse it – It is not open to such person to claim that acquisition has lapsed due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court – Obligation to pay is complete by tendering amount.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 24 (2) and 77 (2) Paid and deposit – Meaning – Word “paid” to landowner cannot include in its ambit expression “deposited” in court – Deposit cannot be said to be payment made to landowners – Deposit is on being prevented from payment – Concept of “deposit” is different and quite apart from word “paid”, due to which, lapse is provided in Section 24 of Act of 2013 – In case of non-deposit for majority of landholdings, higher compensation would follow as such word “paid” cannot include in its ambit word “deposited”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Proviso to Section – Interpretation – Expression `or’ in two negative conditions in Section 24(2) has to be read conjunctively – When word “or” is to be read as ‘and’ in main part of section 24(2), proviso has to stay as part of section 24(2) where it has been placed by legislature, and only then it makes sense – If ‘or’ used in-between two negative conditions of ‘possession has not been taken’ or ‘compensation has not been paid,’ disjunctively, in that case, proviso cannot be operative and would become otiose and would make no sense as part of Section 24(2) – Proviso is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) and not part of Section 24(1)(b)

Are you a Lawyer?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 17 (1) and 48 Divesting of title of land – Once possession taken and award passed land vests in State – It cannot be divested, even if there is some irregularity in acquisition proceedings – Legal fiction of lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 cannot be extended to denude title which has already vested in beneficiaries of acquisition .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 24 (1)(b) and 24 (2) Pending proceedings – Lapse of – Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 deals with situation only where award has been made 5 years or more before commencement of Act, but physical possession of land has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid – It does not visualise situation where possession has been taken under urgency provision but award has not been made on date of commencement of new Act – In such cases, there is no lapse of entire proceedings but compensation is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Act of 2013.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 24 (1)(b) and 24 (2) Pending proceedings under old Act – Lapse of – Section 24(2) starts with non-obstante clause overriding what is contained in Section 24(1) – Thus, Section 24(2) has to be read as exception to and not part of Section 24(1)(b).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Pending proceedings under old Act – Lapse of – Interpretation of word “or’ – While replying to debate, Minister concerned has stated that there would be lapse only if in case possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid – Emphasis right from beginning was on possession – Thus, from perusal of debate it is apparent that word “or” had been understood as “and”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

2020(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 668

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24 (2) Interpretation of word “or” – If two negative conditions are qualified by ‘or’ then ‘or’ should be read as ‘nor’ or ‘and’ – Under Section 24(2) two negative conditions are prescribed i.e neither physical possession is taken ‘or’ compensation is paid – For lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under old law, if both steps are not taken, land acquisition proceedings lapse – Word ‘or’ used between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ.

2020(2) S.C.T. 337

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 133 Judgments on land acquisition matters – Initiation of Disciplinary action – Dismissal from Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services – Judges cannot be held responsible for end result or effect of their decisions – Charge-sheet shows that no such allegation of process vitiated made against appellant – No explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on part of appellant – In one of two cases, compensation only increased, no such inference can be made – Thus, entire case against improper – Order of dismissal set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 300A Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition ) Act, 1977, Sections 3 (1), 4 (2), 5 (1) and 7 (2) – Acquisition of land – Rights in land are no more fundamental right – However, still it remains constitutional right and provisions of any Act seeking to divest any person from rights in property have to be strictly followed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition ) Act, 1977, Sections 3 (1), 4 (2), 5 (1) and 7 (2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Landowner claimed that when he visited suit land he found respondents had wrongly encroached and trespassed same – Respondents raised defence that they have acquired land by following due process and have paid compensation to father of present land owners – Neither notification showing intent to acquire land by respondents nor any proof of payment of compensation adduced – Burden was on State to prove that process of law as envisaged under Act was followed and compensation paid – Landowners entitled to possession of land and also damages for illegal use and occupation by respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 – Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, Section 10 – Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, Rule 4 – Acquisition proceedings – Correction and verification of record – Jurisdiction of District Revenue Officer – Under Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, Tahsildar not empowered to adjudicate upon a `title dispute’ – reading of Section 14 and Rule 4 (4) shows that where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction – Entry records will be updated on basis of decree of civil court upon adjudication – Therefore, District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to correct revenue entries.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Uday Umesh Lalit and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14 Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction – In the earlier proceeding, appellant sought exclusion of land from sanctuary and asserted that State ought to take land and pay compensation whereas claim in present suit was founded on ground that plaintiff suffered loss due to proceedings under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and then, due to exclusion of land in question from acquisition – Relief claimed in suit was different and matter-in-issue was not same as that of earlier proceeding – Hence, appellant not entitled to benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Notification for acquisition of land – Delay in challenging – Notification issued in 1975 acquiring land and symbolic possession remained with State since then – Writ petition filed in 2002 – Section 4 Notification in very case has been struck down by Court in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala V State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 348 – Entire acquisition proceedings quashed and declared null and void by Court – Not in interest of justice to decide appeal in favour of UOI as same would amount to discrimination between two persons similarly placed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Decided: 2020

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 34 Acquisition of land for construction of Dam – Interest from date of award and not from date of Notification – Challenged – Under section 34 , nine percent interest is payable for first year from date of taking possession, and in case it is not paid within one year from date of possession, interest at rate of fifteen percent per annum is payable – Held, date of taking of possession/submergence is disputed – Documentary evidence shows that land was in cultivating possession of appellant and not clear for how much period of a year area in question remained in submergence – Direction to Collector to examine whether area come under submergence and determine quantum of damages to be paid from 1991 till date of notification under section 4 .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 727

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Land acquisition – Enhancement of amount of compensation and award of statutory benefits and interest on delayed period – Huge delay of five and a half years – Considering fact that High Court condoned delay and entertained appeals and enhanced amount of compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for same project vide same notification – However, in view of Apex Court case 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 428 (SC), while condoning delay in preferring appeal before Supreme Court, while enhancing amount of compensation at par with other similarly situated land owners, denial of interest on enhanced amount of compensation for period of delay in approaching High Court by way of LPAs – Therefore, interest on enhanced amount of compensation for period of delay in preferring appeals quashed and set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 670

Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 136 and 142 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Forcible dispossession from property and without compensation – Appellant being illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area deprived of her private property by State without resorting to procedure prescribed by law – Appellant divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century – Cause of action is a continuing one, since appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law – Present case is one where demand for justice is so compelling since State has admitted that land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law – Thus, exercising of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of Constitution – Direction to State to pay compensation and legal costs and expenses of ₹ 1,00,0000/-.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 670

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Forcible dispossession from property by State – Delay and laches in moving Court – Held, no period of limitation prescribed for courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 670

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Forcible dispossession from property by State without legal sanction and compensation – Plea of adverse possession by State – Plea of State that since it has been in continuous possession of land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession – Held, State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years – State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking doctrine of adverse possession to grab property of its own citizens.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 670

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 300 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 Forcible dispossession from property by State without legal sanction and compensation – State must comply with procedure for acquisition , requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ.

Decided: 2019

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 17 (4) and 4 (1) Acquisition of land – Reduction in compensation – Delay in filing appeal seeking parity with other ex-appropriated land owners and craves for restoration of compensation – In view of case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 SCC Online SC 990, appeal is condoned and claimant(s)not entitled to any interest on enhanced compenation and statutory amount – Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order of High Courtset aside – Award passed in favour of appellant-claimant(s) by Reference Court restored.