JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application under sec. 18(3) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, against an order of the District Judge, Kota, rejecting a reference made to him under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector at his instance on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

2. The award by the Collector was made on 21-1-61. On 23-1-61 the applicant applied for a copy of the award. The copy was delivered to him on 13-4-61. On 1-5-61 he made an application to the Collector under sec. 18(1) praying that a reference be made to the court. The application was opposed on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was not made within six weeks of the making of the award. The Collector was however of the opinion that the applicant was entitled to exclude the period from 23-1-61 to 13-4-61 which was requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the award and held that the application was within time. He followed the decision of the Rangoon High Court in Burjorjee vs. Special Collector, Rangoon (AIR 1926 Rangoon to a 135). The Collector accordingly forwarded the reference to the District Judge for disposal.

3. Before the District Judge the applicant filed a written statement of his claim. In para 11 of it he stated that the reference was within limitation. A reply to his written statement was filed on behalf of the State. In para 11 of it it was expressly admitted that the reference was within limitation. On the pleadings of the parties 10 issues were framed but none of them was on the point as to whether the reference was within limitation. After the evidence on all the issues had been recorded an objection was taken on behalf of the State that the application for reference was barred by limitation. This objection was upheld by the learned District Judge and the reference was rejected as time-barred. Against the above order the present revision application has been filed.

4. Two main contentions have been raised on behalf of the applicant. One is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the application for reference was within limitation or not. The other is that the applicant was not present when the award was made and it was not even communicated to him as provided under sec. 12(2) and therefore the second part of clause (b) to the proviso to sec. 18(2) is applicable and the application for reference was within limitation,

5. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned Government Advocate that this revision application is not entertainable as an appeal lay under sec. 54 against the order of the learned District Judge rejecting the reference on the ground that the application for it was barred by limitation. I am unable to uphold this preliminary objection. Sec. 54 runs as follows:—

"Appeals in proceedings before Courts—Subject to the provisions of the Code applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan from the award, or from any part of the award, of the court, and any decree of the said High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid shall be subject to further appeal in accordance with the provisions contained in secs.109 and 110 and O. XLV of the Code."

6. It is clear from the wordings of the above section that what is appealable is an award by the District Judge. If the reference is rejected as invalid being made on a time barred application there is no award by the District Judge and hence no appeal lies to the High Court under sec. 54. I am supported in the view which I have taken by the following decisions—Dembeswar Sharma Vs. The Collector of Sibsagar (39 Indian Cases 637), Ghulam Muhyuddin Vs. The Secretary of State for India (24 Indian Cases 379), Nafis-ud-Din Vs. Secy, of State (AIR 1927 Lah.858(2).

7. Coming now to the first contention raised on behalf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document