RAMDEYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 94/13 of 1963/1960. A piece of land measuring 1.24 acres has been acquired by the Government for the construction of Forest Department building in village Lakharawan, District Shahabad by declaration No. 5554 dated 10-5-1958 published in the Gazette on 11-7-1958. The appellant is the awardee and the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 3598.25 P. as compensation and Rs. 539.74 P. as additional compensation, the total amount being Rs. 4137.99 P. The awardee being dissatisfied made a prayer before the Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector accordingly made the reference and before the Land Acquisition Judge a point was taken on behalf of the respondent, that is, the State of Bihar that the reference was barred by limitation. It may be mentioned here that the findings of the Land Acquisition Judge have not been challenged with regard to the dates of the service of the notice of award etc. and at the time of the hearing of this appeal also these dates have not been challenged. The award was made on 21-7-1959 and the notice of the award as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was served on 25-7-1959 on the awardee. The petition was filed by the awardee before the Collector for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act on 14-9-1959, that is to say, more than six weeks after the receipt of the notice of the award. It was, therefore, in such circumstance, urged before the Land Acquisition Judge that the application for making the reference was barred by limitation under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Judge examined this matter and he has discussed in his judgment about the application being barred by limitation and relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahadeo Krishna Parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag, AIR 1944 Bom 200, was of opinion that if the reference does not comply with the terms of the Act then the Court cannot entertain the objection and see whether the statutory conditions have been complied with and the reference is within time. It, may be mentioned here that it has been urged on behalf of the Appellant that once the Collector had made the reference it was beyond the competence and the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Judge to go into the question about the application being within time or not. The Land Acquisition Judge held that the application was not within time and, therefore, the reference which had been made was without jurisdiction and as such the Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to look into the matter contained in the petition. As regards the quantum of compensation in respect of which the reference was made, the Land Acquisition Judge also recorded a finding which is in favour of the appellant and this finding has also not been challenged here in this appeal.

(2.) This appeal was put up before a single Judge Shambhu Prasad Singh, J, who heard the matter and by his order dated 30-1-1968, he has referred the appeal to a Division Bench because it involves a question of law of some importance which should be settled at rest by a Division Bench. It was pointed out in that order that there was a conflict in the opinion of the different High Courts on the question whether the Land Acquisition Judge could or could not go into the question of limitation when once the reference had been made. It is, therefore, in such circumstance, that this appeal has been heard by a Division Bench and the question which has to be decided is really of importance because of the conflict "of opinion between the different High Courts and there being no direct decision of our High Court on this point or of the Supreme Court. The question which needs decision is as follows:--

(3.) Now, before I take up a discussion of the different decisions of the High Courts on this point, it will be better if I first of all refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Part III of the Act deals with the "Reference to Court and procedure thereon", and the first relevant provision in this connection is Section 18 which is as follows:--