( 1 ) THESE Rules are directed against the refusal of the learned Land Acquisition Collector to make references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant cases.

( 2 ) THE prayer for reference was rejected upon the view that the claimants applicants, having received payments under the awards, otherwise than under protest, were not entitled to maintain applications for references.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended by Mr. Mitter that, in the instant cases, the applicants filed applications, clearly stating therein, that they were prepared to accept the award amounts under protest and prayed for payments accordingly. The payments appear to have been eventually made by the learned Collector and the receipts, which were given by the applicants for such payments, were endorsed on the back of the said applications. In the said receipts, the words "under protest" do not appear, although the above applications, on the back whereof, the said receipts were endorsed clearly contained statements that the applicants were prepared to receive payments under protest.

( 4 ) THE learned Land Acquisition Collector construed the above receipts as receipts for payment, otherwise than under protest, and, upon that view, refused the applicants' prayer for reference. The propriety of this decision is one of the points, arising in these Rules.

( 5 ) THE other question, which has been raised in these proceedings before us, arises on the objection of the opposite parties to the maintainability of the instant revision applications upon the ground that the Collector, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, even under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) THIS last point, which raises a question of jurisdiction of this Court and goes to the root of the entire thing, so far as the present revision cases are concerned, is, obviously, a point of considerable and far-reaching importance, and, accordingly, we will deal with it first. This point has been very strenuously argued by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Advocate, who has sought to oppose these Rules inter alia on this preliminary ground, namely, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Order of the Collector, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Banerjee's principal contention in this respect is to the effect that the Collector, even while he is acting under Section 18 and dealing with an application for reference, is not exercising any judicial function but is acting purely as an. administrative officer and, accordingly, he, acting as aforesaid, is not amenable to the powers of this Court even under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 7 ) THIS submission of Mr. Banerjee is directly opposed to the recent Bench decision of this Court, reported in Kalidasi Dasi v. Land Acquisition Collector, Surf, (1962) 66 Cal WN 446. But Mr. Banerjee has made elaborate submissions on the point and has pressed us to hold that the said decision was not correctly made.

( 8 ) MR. Mitter, appearing in support of these Rules, has contended inter alia that the Collector, whatever be his position under Chapter II, exercises judicial functions, while acting under Chapter III of the Land Acquisition Act, starting with Section 18, and, in dealing with an application for reference under the said section, he has to decide questions, which primarily appertain to the jurisdiction and functions of a judicial officer and primarily concern judicial matters. The whole dispute between the parties, so far as this point is concerned, is as to the question, whether the Collector, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is acting judicially or exercising judicial functions, so as to be a tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution. If the said question be answered in the affirmative, the Collector, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document