CHHEDI LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order dated 22-11-1979 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer Allahabad declining the applicant's request for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly the Act) on the ground that the applica tion was barred by time. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the revision and in that connection reliance has been placed on the decision Moham mad Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra (A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 404. ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered a large number of decisions of various High Courts in this con nection. They found that in some earlier decisions, the Calcutta High Court had taken the view that revision under Section 115 C. P. C. was maintainable, while the view of the other High Courts including the Allahabad High Court was to the contrary. In this connection, inter alia reference was made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kashi Prasad v. Notified Area of Mahoba (A. I. R. 1932 Alld. 598 ). Their Lordships held that the view of the Calcutta High Court that the Collector was a Court subordinate to the High Court was obviously wrong. The power of the Collector to make an order under Section 18 was not judicial in nature nor was the Collector a Court subordinate to the High Court. In view of this pronouncement it must be held that Section 115, C. P. C. has no application and the revision is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has made an oral request for con verting this revision into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but this course is also not open to me in view of another pronounce ment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in decision in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (A,i R. 1980 S. C. 892 ). Their Lordships observed: "a revision petition under Section 115c. P. C. is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and one cannot be identified with the other," In view of the above, the revision deserves to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed with costs. At the oral request of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the office shall return certified copy of the order of the Land Acquisition Officer to the learned counsel on his supply ing a true copy of the same for which he is allowed three weeks time. .