ANNAPURNABAI WASUDEORAO DESHPANDE Vs. RANGNATH KISAN KHANDARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is involved in this revision application is, whether the Land Acquisition Officer, while exercising the powers of the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under Order 33, rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The proceedings, out of which this matter arises relate to the determination of compensation for acquisition of the land S. No. 16/1 situate at Mouza Waghapur, taluq and district Yeotmal and belonging to the revision applicant. In the said proceedings, bearing Land Acquisition Case No. 7/1965-66, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 28-2-1970 and fixed the compensation for the aforesaid land at ? 62,975. Respondent Ranganath who claimed to be the tenant of the said land demanded ? 61,123.74 as the portion of She compensation payable to him. His claim was negatived by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence Ranganath applied to the said Officer for making a reference under section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. He also made an application under Order 33, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code for permission to file the reference in forma pauperis. The revision applicant opposed both these applications and inter alia contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the question of pauperism and the provisions of Order 33, rule I, Civil Procedure Code do not apply to an application for reference under section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide his order dated 15-9-1970, held that he was competent to decide the question of pauperism. He, therefore, enquired into the matter, allowed the application by his order dated 14-10-1971 and held that the provisions of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code are applicable to an application under section 18 of the Act and that the respondent was entitled to make a reference on payment of minimum court fee of ? 15. Being aggrieved by this order, the revision applicant-the land lady has preferred this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

(3.) Dharmadhikari J. who heard the revision application, felt that the controversy involved in this revision application is of general importance and involves a substantial question of law, which should be authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly the matter was placed before the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Masodkar and Kambli JJ. The learned Judges, after referring to a number of decisions for and against the view, that the Collector, while considering an application under section 18 of the Act, is a Civil Court, also felt that the matter requires decision by a larger Bench of this Court. Consequently, reference was made to the Full Bench of this Court consisting of Deshmukh, C. J., Gadgil. J. and myself. The reference involved the following question: