The duty of the Collector to decide on the materials before him whether to make the reference or not, and the limitation of the Land Acquisition Court to scrutinize the regularity or validity of the reference.

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition by the managing trustees of the temple of Sri Venkateswara Swami Varu of Bezwada for revising the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in O. P. No. 33 of 1937 holding that a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Sub-Collector of Bezwada was incompetent and that the subject-matter of the reference cannot be enquired into by him. Certain properties of the temple were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made on the 16th May, 1937. The temple had then only two trustees holding the office and a third trustee was appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 4th May, 1937, for a period of five years from that day. But he seems to have got the order actually subsequent to 31st May, 1937. He gave an application to the Land Acquisition Officer on 1st October, 1937, requesting him as Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act as the amount fixed by the award was insufficient. He also disputed the correctness of the area and measurements of the land as given in the award. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on the 24th November, 1937, making the reference to the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. But he sent ft to the Subordinate Judge with a letter dated 7th December, 1937. It was contended before the learned Subordinate Judge by the Government Pleader that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make the reference as the person who gave the application was not a person interested and that the application was given out of time. It was pleaded for the claimants that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether a reference was in order or not and that the only jurisdiction which the Court had was to consider whether the area and measurements were correctly given and the amount awarded was adequate.

2. The Subordinate Judge found that he had jurisdiction to go into the matter, that the application was made out of time and that the person could not be said to be a person interested. He therefore held that the reference was incompetent and the subject-matter of the reference could not be enquired into. Hence this petition to revise the order.

3. The points for consideration therefore are (1) whether the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of the reference and (2) if so, whether he was right in finding that the application was not made by a person interested and was out of time.

4. Point 1.--It is contended for the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act has limited jurisdiction and that it is not open to him to decide anything except the matters referred to him as it is the reference that gives him jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. In short, it is stated that since it is the reference that gives him the jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, it will not be open to him to enquire whether the reference was in order or not. It is admitted that there are no direct authorities of this Court on this point. In In re the Land Acquisition Act I.L.R.(1905) 30 Bom. 275 it was held by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court that it was open to the Land Acquisition Court to go into the competency or validity of the reference. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Ghulam Muhyuddin v. Secretary of State (1914) 241.C. 379. Sukhbir Singh v. Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R.(1926) All. 212 also refers to it. But a contrary view was expressed in two later decisions of the Allahabad High Court, namely, Secretary of State for India in Council v, Bhagwan Prasad I.L.R.(1929) All. 96 and Secretary of State v. Bhagwan AIR1932All597 , where it was held that it is not open to the Land Acquisition Court to go into the question as to whether the reference was validly made or not. In none of the decisions of the Lahore and Allahabad High Courts cited before me for the respon