Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before a court on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

V. D. Misra, C. J. -Whether Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before a court on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? is the question which arises for determination.

2. The facts in the three cases are similar. In all these cases the claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Collector asked the Collector to make references to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). The references were duly made. During the pendency of the proceedings before the court, the claimants died. Applications under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) for bringing the legal representatives on record were made. These applications were contested. It was inter alia contended that the applications were not made within limitation. The court found that the applications were barred as having not been made within the time allowed under the Limitation Act. The applications were dismissed and it was declared that the references have abated.

3. When these revisions came up before me I found that High Courts have given conflicting decision on the question. I, therefore, decided to refer the matters to a larger Bench and that is now these matters are before us.

4. Part III of the Act relates to "Reference to Court and procedure thereon". Section 18 gives a right to any person interested, who has not accepted the award, to make an application to the Collector asking him to make a reference to the court. Section 19 requires the Collector to give information to the court about the matters referred to in this section. One of the informations which the Collector is required to give is about the "names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land." Section 20 enjoins upon the court to give notice about the date of hearing to (a) the applicant, (b) all persons interested in the objection except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded, and (c) the Collector in case the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation. Section 26 prescribes the form of the award to be made by the Judge. It provides that "every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, clause (2), and Section 2, clause (9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Part VIII of this Act makes provision for miscellaneous matters. The relevant provisions for our purposes is Section 53. It is in the following terms : "Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the court under this Act."

5. It is contended by Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, that once a reference has been made to the court it is the duty of the court to answer the reference. It is submitted that any provision of the Code which is inconsistent with this contention is not applicable. Mr. Sharma says that since it is the duty of the Collector under Section 19 to inform the court about the names of persons whom he has reasons to think interested in the land acquired, it is his duty to inform the court about the names of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant after his death. Various decisions to support this contention are cited.

6. Mr. Inder Singh, learned Advocate General, submits that it is not the duty of the Collector to keep a watch on the proceedings going on before the court and to supply the names of the legal representatives from time to time. Once the reference has been duly made, it is contended, the duty enjoined upon the Collector by the Act comes to an end. It is also contended that though the proceedings before the court do not amount to a suit, the claimant partakes the character of a plaintiff whereas the Collec