Courts must verify that references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act comply with statutory conditions for jurisdiction.

1. "Whether a Court to whom a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made can go behind the reference and decide whether the application has been made beyond the period of limitation?" is the question which arises for decision in these revisions. The Supreme Court in Mahammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1979 SC 404 , has ruled that the Court has the right nay a duty, of satisfying itself that the reference is valid and proper reference. However, Mr. Shamsher Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that this judgment is not applicable in this State because of addition of sub-section (3) in S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). Before I analyse the law I may briefly refer to the facts of one case since similar facts are involved in other cases.

2. In Civil Revision No.127 of 1981 the petitioner is Jamita Ram. His land was acquired for the construction of Beas Dam at Pong by an award dated 31st January, 1972. The Collector announced the rates of compensation in respect of various categories of lands. The petitioner was present when the Collector announced the award. Since he was not satisfied with this award he made an application under S.18 of the Act requiring the Collector to make a reference to the Court for the determination of compensation. This application was resisted. Various issues were framed. During the course of trial it transpired that the application has not been filed within limitation prescribed under sub-sec. (2) of S.18 of the Act. The Court, therefore, found that the reference was not made within time and refused to answer the same.

3. At this stage it may be advantageous to read S.18 along with the amendment made by the Land Acquisition (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1979, adding sub-sec. (3) of S.18 of the Act:
"18. (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 persons 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 S.12, sub-sec - (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
(3) Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)."

4. Mr. Kanwar has taken me through various judgments of different High Courts to canvass that once a reference has been made by the Collector the Court has no right to go behind the reference to find out whether the reference is proper or not, and that the only duty of the Court is to answer the reference. I have decided not to refer to any of these judgments in view of the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Hasnuddin's case, AIR 1979 SC 404 in which all these judgments have been taken notice of. Mr. Kanwar, basing his arguments on the aforementioned sub-sec. (3) of the Act, has contended that since the order of the Collector on the application made under this sub-section is to be treated as order of a Court and