Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be given retrospective effect to interfere with orders of Courts and tribunals made before the enactment of the Constitution and which were final when the Constitution came into force.

Harries, C. J. :- This is a petition praying that the Court should interfere with an order made by the Land Acquisition Officer of Burdwan under powers conferred upon this Court by Art. 227, Constitution of India.

2. To appreciate the points involved it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts of the case which have given rise to this litigation. The petitioners are the holders of property in a village near Burdwan and this property was compulsorily acquired by Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as the land was required for the erection of locomotive works for the East Indian Railway. In due course notice was served under S. 9, Land Acquisition Act, upon the petitioners and on 20-1-1949 in pursuance of that notice the petitioners put forward their claim. The Land Acquisition Collector thereupon commenced Land Acquisition Case No. 15/1A of 1948-49.

3. The properties in dispute are two plots known as Nos. 400 and 401 and according to the petitioners there is on plot No. 400 a hillock in which there are valuable stones or minerals. Under the surface of plot No. 401 it is said there exists a strata of stones or other minerals. On 9-2-1949 the Land Acquisition Collector made an award by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 14,553-6-0 to the petitioners in respect of their interest in these two plots.

4. The petitioners complained that they had not been awarded anything for the minerals or stones in the hillock to which I have referred and for the stones or minerals which were below the surface of plot No. 401. It was represented to the Land Acquisition Collector that nothing had been awarded in respect of these stones or minerals and he was asked to make a reference to the District Judge under the provisions of S. 18, Land Acquisition Act.

5. The learned Land Acquisition Collector held eventually that the minerals and stones had not been acquired by the Government. He said that the declaration under which these lands were acquired provided that : "mines of coal, iron-atone, slate or other minerals lying under the land or any particular portion of the land, except only such parts of the mines and minerals as it may be necessary to dig, or carry away or use, in the construction of the work for the purpose of which the land is being acquired are not needed."

6. It was contended by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Collector that the minerals and stone had been acquired but nothing had been awarded in respect of them. Further it was urged that the hillock had been quarried away and that the stone in the hillock was being used for the purpose of the works which were being carried on in the land. It was also urged that the stone lying underneath the surface of plot No. 401 was being used and therefore the award should have provided for payment for these stones or minerals. The award on the other hand, it was said, merely gave the petitioners the value of the surface of this land.

7. The Land Acquisition Collector refused to refer this matter to the District Judge and there can be no doubt that before the Constitution of India came into force on 26-1-1950 that order of the Land Acquisition Collector could not be challenged. It had been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Khetsidas Gangaram v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, 50 C. W. N. 758 : (A.I.R. (33) 1946 Cal. 508), that an order made under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, refusing to refer a matter to the civil Court was not revisable and could not be challenged in this Court. It was held that in dealing with an application for a reference under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, the Collector does not act either as a Court or as a Court subordinate to the High Court so as to make his order revisable under S. 115, Civil P. C. Other Courts had taken the same view including the High Court at Patna. In the latter Court in the case of Jagarnath Lall v. Land Acquisition Deputy Collector, Patna, A. I. R. (27) 1940 Pat. 102 : (19 Pat. 321 S. B.), a v