GANGAVVA Vs. UDACHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is:

(2.) Judicial opinion is divided on the question whether the L.A. Court (Land Acquisition Court) could examine the validity of a reference made to it under S. 18. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that the L.A.O. (Land Acquisition Officer) being a statutory authority, his powers are those conferred by the "Act", exercise of those powers should be in accordance with the provisions contained in the "Act" and that failure to comply with the requirements of the law would make his reference under Section 18 an incompetent reference.

(3.) The Judicial Committee held in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Secretary of State AIR 1930 PC 64 that the L.A. Court being a special tribunal, its powers are strictly limited by the terms of Sections 18, 20 and 21; it can act only when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and its jurisdiction is confined to a consideration of that objection. But in that case there was no occasion to consider the scope of the powers of the L.A.O. There can be no doubt that if the reference made by the L.A.O. is a valid reference, the L.A. Court which is a statutory tribunal is bound by that reference; its duties and functions are those set out in the "Act". But can it be said that the L.A. Court has no competence to find out whether it has jurisdiction to try the matter referred to it? The scope and powers of specially constituted tribunals came up for consideration in R. v. Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income-tax, (1888) 21 QBD 313. Dealing with that question Lord Esher M.R. observed: