ATMA SINGH Vs. WARYAM SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under Sub -section (3) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) from the order, dated November 24, 1965, of the Land Acquisition Collector (Estate Officer) at Chandigarh. Sub -section (3) has been added to Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition, (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1953, (Punjab Act 2 of 1954) and it provides that "Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)." The land of the parties has been acquired by the State Government for development of the Capital Project at Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on March 27, 1965, settling two matters - -(a) the quantum of compensation to be paid to the parties and (b) the apportionment of the compensation among them. In the matter of apportionment he found that the share in the compensation of the Applicants is two -thirds and that of the Respondents one -third. The Respondents thereafter made a number of applications to the Land Acquisition Collector in which they sought to show that the shares of the parties determined for the matter of apportionment of the compensation were not correctly determined. The Land Acquisition Collector who made the award in the first instance has subsequently been succeeded by the present Land Acquisition Collector, who has disposed of those applications of the Respondents by the order sought to be revised. In the heading of the order it is clearly stated that the Respondents applications were under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act and in paragraph 16 of his order the Land Acquisition Collector says clearly that he has rejected the applications of the Respondents under those sections for reference of the matter of dispute in regard to apportionment of the compensation to the Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Collector, who was initially seized of the matter of claim for compensation proceeded to arrive at his conclusions on the basis of the Jamabandi of 1960 -61, the relevant Jamabandi, but his successor, the present Land Acquisition Collector, in view of the applications of the Respondents, has considered the revenue records from the Jamabandi of 1944 -45, has taken into consideration deaths in the family and consequent changes in the shares of the members of the family resulting from inheritance. He has arrived at the conclusion that the shares of the parties are not in the ratio of two -thirds for the Applicants and one -third for the Respondents, but in the ratio of 50:50. On this conclusion he has proceeded to correct the order of his predecessor and having done that, he has felt it unnecessary to make a reference of the dispute between the parties to the Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act.

(2.) IN substance the order of the Land Acquisition Collector made on November 24, 1965, is an order reviewing the award made by his predecessor on March 27, 1965. In the Act there is no provision which gives power to him to review the orders of his predecessor. No doubt Section 53 of the Act makes applicable the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to all proceedings before 'the Court' under the Act and Section 3(d) of the Act defines the expression 'Court' to mean a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. It is obvious that a Collector under the Act is not within this definition and to his proceedings Section 53 of the Act is not attracted. So the Collector under the Act cannot claim a power of review under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order, dated November 24, 1965, of the present Land Acquisition Collector is obviously without jurisdiction. The matter is quite clear and this approach is supported by Kashi Parshad v. Notified Area Mahoba : A.I.R. 1932 All. 598. Apparently the order of November 24, 1965, of the Land Acquisition Collector, in the circumstances cannot be sustained under any provision of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondents then says that the Land Acquisition Collector having rejected the applications of the Respondents under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, it is open to this Court under Sub -section (3) of Section 18, in exercise of its powers of revision, to direct him to make a reference of the dispute about apportionment to the Court under the Act. Although this application has been moved by the Applicants and obviously not by the Respondents, but I do not see why this Court cannot exercise its powers under Sub -section (3) of Section 18 of the Act in a proper case even in such circumstances. The detailed order of the Land Acquisition Collector that is under consideration itself provides more than, ample material which should have impelled him to make reference of the dispute between the parties to the Court and it is obvious that he failed to exercise jurisdiction when this is an eminent case in which reference should have been made. So this argument on the side of the Respondents is accepted, the order, dated November 24, 1965, of the Land Acquisition Collector is quashed and he is directed to make a reference of the dispute between the parties to the Court under the Act.