ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was published in the Gazette by the State of Mizoram on 13-8-1987 acquiring the land in District Aizawl for providing accommodation to the Assam Rifles. The respondent filed objections and ultimately the objections were overruled. The Collector made his Award No. 4 of 1988 on 26-8-1988. The respondent was entitled to compensation of Rs 5,34,748. The respondent received the compensation under protest and on 29-9-1988, filed an application but ultimately the Collector did not make any reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

3. The respondent filed the Civil Suit No. 2 of 1989 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl which endorsed for disposal to the Additional District Magistrate. After the receipt of the notice the appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit. The Additional District Magistrate in his judgment overruled the objection and granted the decree declaring that "the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs 26,39,286 as compensation for compulsory acquisition of his lands described in the suit and shall get the decree to that effect". The appellant had challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the judgment and decree in the High Court. By the impugned judgment in First Appeal No. 1 of 1991 dated 15-6-1993, the High Court of Guwahati dismissed the appeal.

4. It is contended for the appellant that under scheme of the Act when the claimant received the compensation under protest, he should specifically seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Since he did not seek the reference, the Collector was not under any obligation to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Instead of filing a writ petition under Article 226 directing the Collector to refer the dispute, the respondent had chosen to file the civil suit which the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and grant a decree as confirmed by the appellate court.

5. It is contended by Mr K.K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent that what the court has to see is the substance of the matter. It is argued that the Governor had issued the notification adopting the Assam Autonomous Districts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1951 under sub-section (3) of Section 2. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the said Regulation says:

"Any court or authority may construe the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) and of any rules and orders made thereunder with such modifications not affecting substance as may be necessary or proper to adopt them to the matter before that court or authority."

6. The Deputy Commissioner gave a hearing to the respondent and after having been satisfied, referred the matter to the Civil Court of Additional District Magistrate to dispose of the suit. In substance the suit is a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court had thereby jurisdiction to grant the decree as was given in the impugned judgment. We find no force in the contentions.

7. It is true that in the State of Mizoram, the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate have the jurisdiction both on the executive side and the civil side. But the one cannot be confused for the other. When the statute indicated that the action be taken was to be in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other way. Under Section 11 of the Act the Collector after making an Award is enjoined to tender payment after giving notice of making the award and on receiving the notice any person interested present at the time of making the award or on receipt of the notice, is not only entitled to receive the compensation under Sections 18 and 31 of the Act under protest but also is entitled to make an application in writing requiring the Collector to refer the matter and the Collector is enjoined under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference of the objection ma