SRINIBAS SUNDER DAS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to issue a writ of Mandamus or other suitable direction to Opp. party No. 1 to refer the application dated 24-8-65 filed by petitioner Under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 to the District Judge, Ganjam for disposal according to law.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the Land Acquisition Officer (opp. party No. 1)acquired certain lands in Berhampur in the year 1964 including S. No. 189/b-2. Petitioner coming to learn about this acquisition filed objections by his letter at annexure B and was called upon to prefer his claim. Accordingly, he filed his claim in respect of 0. 14 cents alleging that the said extent of the acquired land in Plot no. 139/b-2 belonged to him. Opposite party No. 1 issued a notice to him on 273-65 intimating that the award would be pronounced at Chatrapur on 30-3-65 at 11. 00 a. m. Petitioner received this notice at Jharsuguda where he was serving on 30-3-65, and as such, could not attend the office of opp. party No. 1. Subsequently, coming to learn that the entire compensation for 0. 17 decimals, appertaining to plot No. 130/b-2 including 0. 14 cents claimed by him had been paid to opp. party No. 2, he filed an application on 24-8-65 before opp. party No. 1 to make a reference to the District Judge, Ganjam Under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. It is alleged that opp. party No. 1 failed to consider his claim and decided in favour of opp. party No. 2 behind his back in a clandestine manner with a view to favour him. Repeated reminders about making a reference Under Section 18 did not get any response, and therefore, petitioner ultimately sent a registered notice with acknowledgement due to opp. party No. 1 on 18-12-65. In reply by his office letter dated 6-1-66 at annexure K/1, petitioner was advised to seek redress in a proper court of law for recovery of the compensation in respect of the acquired land title to which was claimed by him. Petitioner again wrote to opp. party No. 1 on 15-1-66 to make a reference Under section 18, but received a reply to the same effect on 29-1-66. Thereafter he asked for copies of orders and other documents, and was informed that free copies could not be granted. Petitioner then applied, obtained certified copies and filed the present application. According to petitioner, when an application for making a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made, opp. party No. 1 had no option but to make a reference, and in the present case, in refusing to make a reference, he has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law. Opp. parties, in their counters, have raised various objections, but for disposal of this application, it is not necessary to deal with all of them.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for opp. parties Nos. 2 to 4 raised the following preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application. It is pointed out by him that against an order of the Land Acquisition Collector refusing to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act, a statutory remedy being available and the petitioner not having availed of the same, it is not open to him to invoke the prerogative jurisdiction of the Court. Though the parent Act, 1894 (Land Acquisition Act) is silent regarding the remedy in cases where the Collector refused to make a reference on an application Under Section 18, by addition of subsection (3) to section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Orissa amendment) Act, 1948, a statutory remedy has been provided as follows: