JAMITA RAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF KANGRA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether a Court to whom a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made can go behind the reference and decide whether the application has been made beyond the period of limitation?" is the question which arises for decision in these revisions. The Supreme Court in Mahammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404, has ruled that the Court has the right nay a duty, of satisfying itself that the reference is valid and proper reference. However, Mr. Shamsher Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, con-tends that this judgment is not applicable in this State because of addition of Sub-section (3) in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act), Before I analyse the law I may briefly refer to the facts of one case since similar facts are involved in other cases,

(2.) In Civil Revision No. 127 of 1981 the petitioner is Jamita Ram. His land was acquired for the construction of Beas Dam at Pong by an award dated 31st January, 1972. The Collector announced the rates of compensation in respect of various categories of lands. The petitioner was present when the Collector announced the award. Since he was not satisfied with this award he made an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Collector to make a reference to the Court for the determination of compensation. This application was resisted. Various issues were framed. During the course of trial it transpired that the application has not been filed within limitation prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, The Court, therefore, found that the reference was not made within time and refused to answer the same,

(3.) At this stage it may be advantageous to read Section 18 along with the amendment made by the Land Acquisition (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1979, adding Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act: