KRISHNA DEVI GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a land acquisition proceeding, an award was made by the Collector on 11th February, 1987, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. A reference was sought for under Section 18 by the petitioner-claimant on 3rd June, 1989, giving rise to a reference being L.A.R. No. 141 of 1990. The learned District Judge, Moradabad, by a judgment and order dated 7th September, 1993 dismissed the reference on the ground of its being barred by limitation. Against this order, the present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision. According to him, the order passed by the Learned District Judge was an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which prescribes a remedy by way of appeal to the High Court. Therefore, the revision could not be maintained and the petitioner was eligible to file an appeal upon payment of the requisite court-fees. As such, the revision Is incompetent.

(3.) Mr. Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the claim ant-petitioner on the other hand contends that since the learned District Judge had dismissed the reference as barred by limitation, it had not entered into the reference. According to him, the Court had decided the competence of the Collector to make the reference. As soon it decides that the reference was incompetent, it does not enter into the reference. When a reference is made by the Collector under Section 18, the Court has power to examine as to whether such reference is competent or not. Therefore, when the Court does not enter into the reference, there is no question of conferring any character of award on the order by which he has refused to exercise, his jurisdiction. His second contention was that since the award has not been defined in the Land Acquisition Act itself for construing the meaning of the award, one has to fall back on the scheme of the award and take intrinsic aid from the Act itself namely. Section 26 of the said Act. According to him. Section 26 having prescribed the form of the award unless the order satisfied the test laid down in Section 26, the same cannot be termed as an award. He also refers to the dictionary meaning of the word 'award' as well as the Law Lexicon where an award has since been defined. He had also relied on various decisions in support of his contention to which reference would be made at a later stage.