1. In a Land Acquisition Case a reference was made by the Collector to the District Court at Bhuj. The learned District Judge rejected the reference holding that it was barred by time and that that was not a valid reference. He, therefore, refused to hear the reference and hence this revision application. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that once a reference is made by a Collector under S. 19 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court, the District Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the reference is within limitation or whether the reference was in conformity with the provisions of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .

2. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relies on Hari Krishan v. State of Pepsu , AIR 1958 Punj 490, Venkateswaraswami v. Sub-Collector, Bezwada, AIR 1943 Mad. 327, Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, ILR (52) All. 96 : AIR 1929 All 769, and Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, AIR 1932 All. 597. But the learned counsel for the opponent disputes this proposition and relied on Mahadeo Krishna v. Mamlatdar of Alibag , ILR 1944 Bom. 90 : (AIR 1944 Bom. 200) G. J. Desai v. Abdul Mazid Kadri, 53