U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. Since the above-noted civil revisions arise out of a common judgment and order and the facts of the civil revisions and law governing the field is identical, therefore, they are being decided together, by this common judgment, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2. Civil Revision no. 48 of 2017 shall be the leading case.

3. By means of above noted civil revisions, the revisionists seek following relief, among others:

(i) to allow the revisions with costs by setting the judgment and order dated 07.04.2017, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in land acquisition cases filed by the private respondents.

(ii) to dismiss the land acquisition cases filed by the private respondents in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun.

4. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved on behalf of the revisionists. Learned court below (Addl. District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun) disposed of the same and directed the Power Grid Corporation of India (revisionist herein) to file their written statements. By the impugned order, it was directed that since the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, it will be decided at the time of final hearing of the land acquisition references.

5. It is this decision of learned court below against which the revisionists have filed the above noted civil revisions before this Court.

6. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, reads as below:

18. Reference to Court. - (1) 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 person 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 Collector's 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 Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.”

7. Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is also important in the context of this case. The said Section reads as under:

“12. Award of Collector when to be final. - (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.”

8. While the Collector in making an award under Section 11 acts as an agent of the Government, in making a reference to the Court under Section 18 he acts as a statutory authority exercising his own powers under the section. The Collector has to act subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 18. Accordingly, the making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to Section 18, sub-section (2) is a sine qua non for the making of a valid reference by him. The Court being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, has the duty and power to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In so doing the court is certainly not acting as a court of appeal; it is only confirming if a valid and proper reference has be