The principal Subordinate Judges, appointed to function as a Court under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, are courts subordinate to the District Judge, and the District Judge has the power to transfer the case to the Subordinate Judge under Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Code, provided the Subordinate Judge is otherwise competent to try and dispose of the same.

Judgement

G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- The disputed land consists of 1.75 acres in plots Nos. 517/32 and 527/1 in village Mundagan in the district of Kalahandi. The Forest Department took possession of the land in 1954 for construction of quarters. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was made on 25-3-60. The respondent claimed compensation at Rs. 5,56, 485.00. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter to be referred to as the Collector) gave an award on 5-9-1961 for Rs. 2,328.75 nP. The respondent had knowledge of the award on 15-8-62 and did not accept it. By a written application to the Collector under Section 18, she requested that the objection should be referred for determination to the Court. The Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi (hereinafter to be referred to as the District Judge) on 23-5-63 under Section 19 of the Act. The District Judge entertained the reference on 6-7-63. On the 19th July, 63 the District Judge transferred the case to the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, who, after taking evidence disposed of the reference and passed the Award on 24-7-1964 holding that the respondent was entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,33,903.10 P. Against this award, the Collector filed the appeal.

In the memorandum of appeal, the challenge was both, as regards the quantum of compensation and the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir to dispose of the reference. The first appeal was heard by a Bench of this Court consisting of A. Misra and Acharya JJ. The Bench was of opinion that (1965) 31 Cut LT 375 (State of Orissa v. Ajoy Kumar Padhee) was wrongly decided. Their Lordships accordingly formulated the following questions of law and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench to decide the same :-

"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the District Judge had powers to transfer such a matter to be heard by the Subordinate Judge;

(ii) Whether a special judicial officer appointed to perform the functions of a Court under the said Act, continued to be a Court subordinate to the District Court so as to be amenable to his general powers of transfer and withdrawal under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code.

(iii) Whether, after a special Judicial Officer is appointed under clause (d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, to perform the functions of the Court under that Act within the specified local limit, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction continued to co-exist and can exercise the power of a Court under the Act, for the same specified area; and

(iv) in view of the two abovementioned notifications dated 30-10-62, whether the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir continued to be Principal Subordinate Judge for the Kalahandi district, so as to have jurisdiction to hear the reference in question."

This is how the appeal was heard by this Full Bench.

2. The learned Advocate-General contended that the proper court to entertain the reference under Section 19 of the Act was the Subordinate Judge of Kalahandi sitting at Bhawanipatna and not the District Judge or the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir, and the impugned Award passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir is without jurisdiction and therefore void, and so also the transfer of the reference made by the District Judge to the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir.

The appeal has not been argued on merits.

3. The following questions arise for determination :-

(i) Did the District Judge have jurisdiction to entertain the reference under Section 19?

(ii) If not, which was the proper court to entertain the reference?

(iii) If the District Judge was not competent to entertain the reference, was the order of transfer made by him from his own file to that of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, valid?

(iv) Is the decision of a court competent to decide a reference, without jurisdiction and void, merely because the reference was t