SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION RAILWAYS VISHAKHAPATNAM Vs. VARABALAKSHMI NARAS MHASWAMIVARU THE DEITY OF SIMACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference was made to the learned Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Railways, Visakhapatnam. The learned Subordinate Judge, instead of making an award under Section 26 of the Act as he was bound to do, remanded the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer, which he had no jurisdiction to do. And that is the point taken in this appeal by the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) I have no doubt that a court to which a reference is made under section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 has no power to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer. The jurisdiction given to the court under section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 and the subsequent provisions is a special jurisdiction and the power of remand, if any, must be found within the statute. There is no such power to be discovered in any of the provisions. Nor is there any inherent power of remand such as an Appellate Court might have since the Court functioning under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 does not function as an appellate Court. If authority is necessary for the proposition that a Court to which a reference is made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has no power of remand, it is to be found ia the case of Revenue Divisional Officer v. Villa Raja. In that case Wadswortb, J , held (hat the Act did not empower the Court to remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and for a further award. Wadswortb, J. however, held that no appeal was maintainable against the order of remand and proceeded to set aside the order in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court. Wadsworth, J., was wrong to the extent that he said an appeal was not maintainable. That has been decided in the case of Chengalvaraya v Collector of Madras In A.S, No. 86 of 1963, my brothtr Obul Keddi, J , in an appeal arising out of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, remanded the case to the Land Acquisition officer. In A.S. No. 224 of 1971, ray brother Sambasiva Rao, J., up eld an order of remand similar to the one under appeal in the present case. Neither of my brothers considered the question whether the Court was competent to remand the case to the Land Acquisition Officer and I do not therefore consider the decisions as binding precedents.

(3.) Sri P.P. Surya Rao, drew my attention to Madhusudan Das v Collector and Raja of Pithapuram v. Revenue Divisional Officer. kach of them was a case where the High Court, in an appeal under section 54 of the Act, remanded the case to the court which heard the reference under section 18 of the Act, Neither was a case of remand to the Land Acquisition Officer Sri P.P. Surya Rao, also invited my attention to the decision of Roman Nayar C,J, and V.R. Krishna Iyer, J , in State of Kerala v Manamma New, section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act prescribes what particulars the Collector shall state when he makes a reference under section 18 of the Act. If the Collector fails to state to particulars required to be stated, then there is no reference at all as required by the Act and the Court would be justified in returning the reference and calling upon the Collector to make a proper reference That precisely was what the Kerala High court did In State of Kerala v. Martamma That is quite a different thing from Branding a case for fresh enquiry and award Under section 11 of the Act When a reference is not properly made the Court will be justified in refusing to adjudicate on the reference, The Court will also be justified in making an order calling for a proper reference, as a corollary. But where a reference is properly made, the Court cannot send the case back on the ground that the Collector had not applied the correct principles in making the award under section 11. If the Collector failed to apply the correct principles, it is for the Court to apply the correct principles and make an award. That is the very reason why a reference is provided by statute to the Court. In dealing with a reference, the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal and confine itself to the material which was before (he Land Acquisition Officer. It deals with the matter as if it is an original proceeding, receives all relevant evidence adduced before it and considers all matters mentioned in Section 23 of the Act. The Court then makes its own award There can be no question of a remand. Returning an improper reference should not be confused with a remand.