(1.) When an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act') is filed, whether the Collector can simply make a reference, without verifying whether there is valid reference or not, leaving that matter also to be decided by the reference Court merely because claimant asserts that all requisites of S.18 are complied with, is the question of law to be considered in these Writ Petitions. These cases are referred to the decision of the Division Bench by an. order of reference passed by the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice R. Rajendra Babu) doubting the view taken by another Single Judge of this Court in Assain v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2003 (1) KLT 863 . It is not disputed that an interested person can apply for reference under S.18(1) only if the award amount is received under protest and claim is filed within the time prescribed under S.18(2). S.18 of the Act is as follows:
(2.) If these conditions are not satisfied, Collector is bound to reject the reference application. Even if an application is rejected wrongly, claimants cannot approach the Civil Court by filing an application under S.18 directly. If the 4 conditions mentioned above are not satisfied, Collector cannot make a reference to the Civil Court. The express requisites in S.18(1) entrusted an obligation on the part of the Collector to make the reference if the conditions prescribed in the Section are satisfied. He is statutorily bound to make a reference and if he refuses to make a reference, a writ of mandamus can be issued. We are concerned only with condition No. 1 in this judgment regarding acceptance of the award. In this connection S.31(1) and (2) of the Act are also relevant. They are as follows:
(3.) In Special Tahsildar v. Kallu, 2000 (3) KLT 71 , a Division Bench of this Court held that whether application under S.18 was filed in time or not is to be considered by the Collector and not by the reference Court. Court was of the opinion that only a valid application can be referred by the Collector.