SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Ori) 26

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Panigrahi, J.
SAMANTA RADHA PRASANNA DAS - Appellant
Versus
PROVINCE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Civil Revn.  23  Of  1949
Decided On : April 11, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
S.C.PARIJA

The court has the power to set aside the Collector's refusal to make a reference under the Land Acquisition Act if it is found to be manifestly opposed to law and resulting in great injustice to the petitioner.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Refusal to Make Reference - The court held that the order of the Collector refusing to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was set aside, and the Collector was directed to make a reference in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's plot was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Collector refused to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge, claiming that the objection was barred by time.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of the Collector was manifestly opposed to law and resulted in great injustice to the petitioner, and therefore set aside the refusal to make a reference and directed the Collector to make a reference in accordance with the Act.

Issues: The issue was whether the Collector's refusal to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of the Collector was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was manifestly opposed to law, resulting in great injustice to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed with costs, and the Collector was directed to make a reference in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of plot No. 42 in village Srikrishuapur measuring 14 and odd acres. This plot was acquired under Land Acquisition Act by the collector and an award was passed on 20-7-48. The petitioner was not present at the time the award was made. Notice of the award was accordingly issued under Section 12 (2), Land Acquisition Act, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-7-48. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded and, therefore, filed his objection on 3-9-48 which was within the time prescribed under Section 18 (2) (b) of the Act. The Collector, however, overruled his objection and refused to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18 (1) of the Act, on the ground that the objection was barred by time-It is against this order of refusal to make a reference that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

( 2 ) IT is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the Collector, while acting under the Land Acquisition Act is not an order of a Court subordinate to this court and that his order is not open to revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitioner has, therefore, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari so that the mistake committed by the collector may be recitified. As against this, however, the learned Advocate general has pointed out that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High court has got the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and that the Collector, exercising his powers under the Land acquisition Act, is a tribunal over whom this Court has got the power of superintendence. The order of the Collector being manifestly opposed to law has resulted in great injustice to the petitioner and it is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to rectify the mistake and afford relief to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE order of the Collector refusing to make a reference to the Court of the district Judge is set aside and he is directed to make a reference in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the District judge.

( 4 ) THIS petition is allowed accordingly with costs. Hearing fee one gold Mohur.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top