Back
1981 Supreme(HP) 60
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
VYAS DEV MISRA
JAMITA RAM - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, PONG DAM TALWARA - Respondent
C. R. Petition Nos. 127, 154, 155 & 186 of 1981
Decided On : 10/30/1981
For the Petitioner:Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent:Shri Inder Singh, Advocate General.
A court has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of a reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, including whether it was made within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. The addition of sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Act, providing for revision of the Collector's order by the High Court, does not deprive the court of this jurisdiction.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 - VALIDITY - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE - LIMITATION - SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 18 - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the trial court holding that the references made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners contended that the court had no jurisdiction to go behind the reference and decide whether the application was made beyond the period of limitation, especially in light of the addition of sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it had the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference, including whether it was made within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. The court reasoned that the Collector's power to make a reference under Section 18 was circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, including the condition regarding limitation. The court further held that the addition of sub-section (3) to Section 18, which provided for revision of the Collector's order by the High Court, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference.
Issues: 1. Whether a court to whom a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made can go behind the reference and decide whether the application has been made beyond the period of limitation? 2. Whether the addition of sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Act, providing for revision of the Collector's order by the High Court, deprived the court of its jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference, including whether it was made within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. This is because the Collector's power to make a reference under Section 18 is circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, including the condition regarding limitation. The court has a duty to satisfy itself that the reference is valid and proper before exercising its jurisdiction to determine the compensation. 2. The addition of sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Act, providing for revision of the Collector's order by the High Court, does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference. The court's jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference is a basic and preliminary duty that no tribunal can avoid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions in Civil Revision Nos. 127 and 154 of 1981, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the cases to the trial court for framing an issue on the question of limitation and giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The court dismissed Civil Revisions Nos. 155 and 186 of 1981, finding that the petitioners had failed to produce evidence to explain the delay in filing their applications under Section 18 of the Act.
V. D. Misra, C. J.-— "Whether a court to whom a reference under Section i 8 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made can go behind the reference and decide whether the application has been made beyond the period of limitation ?" is the question which arises for decision in these revisions. The Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra, [A. I. R.I 979 S. C. 404], has ruled that the court has the right, nay a duty, of satisfying itself that the reference is valid and proper reference. However, Mr. Shamsher Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that this judgment is not applicable in this State because of addition of sub-section (3) in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). Before I analyse the law I may briefly refer to the facts of one case since similar facts are involved in other cases.
2. In Civil Revision No 127 of 1981 the petitioner is Jamita Ram. His land was acquired for the construction of Beas Dam at Pong by an award dated 31st January, 1972. The Collector announced the rates of compensation in respect of various categories of lands. The petitioner was present when the Collector announced the award. Since he was not satisfied with this award he made an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Collector to make a reference to the court for the determination of compensation. This application was resisted. Various issues were framed. During the course of trial it transpired that the application has not been filed within limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. The court, therefore, found that the reference was not made within time and refused to answer the same.
3. At this stage it may be advantageous to read Section 18 alongwith the amendment made by the Land Acquisition (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1979 adding sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Act: "18. (I) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made :— (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award ; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire. (3, Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)."
4. Mr. Kanwar has taken me through various judgments of different High Courts to canvass that once a reference has been made by the Collector the Court has no right to go behind the reference to find out whether the reference is proper or not, and that the only duty of the court is to answer the reference. I have decided not to refer to any of these judgments in view of the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Hasnuddins case in which all these judgments have been taken notice of. Mr. Kanwar, basing his arguments on the afore-mentioned sub-section (3) of the Act, has contended that since the order of the Collector on the application made under this sub-section is to be treated as order of a court and since the High Court had the revisional jurisdiction to correct the order, it is not open to the court dealing with the reference to hold that the reference was beyond the period of limitation.
5. It is true
