PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.Wasiuddin JJ.
Ramdeyal Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from Original Decree No. 576 of 1963 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 19, 1968
LAND ACQUISITION - Reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act - Whether the Land Acquisition Judge can go into the question that the application for reference was not made to the Collector within the time prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and if so, can the Land Acquisition Judge refuse to entertain the reference, if he finds it to be time-barred?
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an awardee, challenged the Land Acquisition Judge's decision to reject his reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The Collector had made the reference despite the application being filed beyond the six-week period specified in Sec.18(2) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Land Acquisition Judge has the jurisdiction to examine whether the application for reference was made within the time prescribed under Sec.18(2) of the Act and can refuse to entertain the reference if it is found to be time-barred.
Issues: 1. Whether the Land Acquisition Judge can go into the question of limitation when a reference has been made by the Collector under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. If so, can the Land Acquisition Judge refuse to entertain the reference if he finds it to be time-barred?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sec.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which prescribes the time limit for filing an application for reference, as a mandatory provision that creates a pre-requisite condition for the Collector's jurisdiction to make the reference. 2. The court reasoned that the Land Acquisition Judge's jurisdiction is derived from the Collector's reference and if the reference is made beyond the time limit, it is ultra vires and the Land Acquisition Judge has no jurisdiction to proceed further. 3. The court distinguished the Land Acquisition Judge's role from that of an appellate or revisional authority, emphasizing that the examination of the application's timeliness is not a review of the Collector's decision but a determination of the court's own jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Land Acquisition Judge's decision to reject the reference as time-barred.
S.Wasiuddin, J.
1. This appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 94/13 of 1963/1960. A piece of land measuring 1.24 acres has been acquired by the Government for the construction of Forest Department building in village Lakharawan, District Shahabad by declaration No. 5554 dated 10-5-1958 published in the Gazette on 11-7-1958. The appellant is the awardee and the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 3598.25 P. as compensation and Rs. 539.74 P. as additional compensation, the total amount being Rs. 4137.99 P. The awardee being dissatisfied made a prayer before the Collector for making a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector accordingly made the reference and before the Land Acquisition Judge a point was taken on behalf of the respondent, that is, the State of Bihar that the reference was barred by limitation. It may be mentioned here that the findings of the Land Acquisition Judge have not been challenged with regard to the dates of the service of the notice of award etc. and at the time of the hearing of this appeal also these dates have not been challenged.
The award was made on 21-7-1959 and the notice of the award as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was served on 25-7-1959 on the awardee. The petition was filed by the awardee before the Collector for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act on 14-9-1959, that is to say, more than six weeks after the receipt of the notice of the award. It was, therefore, in such circumstance, urged before the Land Acquisition Judge that the application for making the reference was barred by limitation under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Judge examined this matter and he has discussed in his judgment about the application being barred by limitation and relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahadeo Krishna Parkar V/s. Mamlatdar of Alibag, AIR 1944 Bom 200, was of opinion that if the reference does not comply with the terms of the Act then the Court cannot entertain the objection and see whether the statutory conditions have been complied with and the reference is within time.
It, may be mentioned here that it has been urged on behalf of the Appellant that once the Collector had made the reference it was beyond the competence and the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Judge to go into the question about the application being within time or not. The Land Acquisition Judge held that the application was not within time and, therefore, the reference which had been made was without jurisdiction and as such the Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to look into the matter contained in the petition. As regards the quantum of compensation in respect of which the reference was made, the Land Acquisition Judge also recorded a finding which is in favour of the appellant and this finding has also not been challenged here in this appeal.
2. This appeal was put up before a single Judge Shambhu Prasad Singh, J, who heard the matter and by his order dated 30-1-1968, he has referred the appeal to a Division Bench because it involves a question of law of some importance which should be settled at rest by a Division Bench. It was pointed out in that order that there was a conflict in the opinion of the different High Courts on the question whether the Land Acquisition Judge could or could not go into the question of limitation when once the reference had been made. It is, therefore, in such circumstance, that this appeal has been heard by a Division Bench and the question which has to be decided is really of importance because of the conflict "of opinion between the different High Courts and there being no direct decision of our High Court on this point or of the Supreme Court. The question which needs decision is as follows:-
-
"Whether the Land Acquisition Judge in a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act
Lila Mahton V/s. Sheo Govind Singh
Mahesh Pd. Sinha V/s. Manjay Lal
Dr. G.H. Grant V/s. State Of Bihar
G.J. Desai V/s. Abdul Mazid Kadri
Kana Navanna Narayanappa Naidu V/s. Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi
Kochukunju Padmanabhan V/s. State Of Kerala
State Of Rajasthan V/s. L.D. Silva
State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The Collector Of Nainital V/s. Abdul Karim
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.