(1.) THIS revision arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings, which were taken for compulsory acquisition of an extent of six odd kanals of land in village Solina in Tahsil Srinagar for the purpose of widening the road leading to the Srinagar aerodrome. An award was made by the Collector under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11 -6 -1952 and the amount of compensation was tendered in accordance with the award to Samaj Sudhar Samiti, a registered society, which accepted it. More than six months after the date of the Collectors award, the present petitioner applied to the Collector for making a reference to the Court on the ground that he was the person entitled to receive the compensation and not Samaj Sudhar Samiti. The Collector accordingly made a reference to the District Judge at Srinagar. The reference purported to be made under S. 32 or the State Land Acquisition Act, which corresponds to S. 31 of the Central Act. But the District Judge treated it as a reference under S. 31 of the State Act which corresponds to S. 30 of the Central Act. He held that the reference was incompetent and rejected it. The petitioner has now moved this Court in revision. It first came before Ali, J. who referred it to a Division Bench as he was of opinion that the case involved difficult questions of law.
(2.) IT is necessary to state at the outset certain facts to clear the ground. The petitioners learned counsel proceeded on the basis that the reference was made under S. 31 of the State Act. (S.30 of the Central Act). It is common ground that the reference was not one falling within the purview of S. 18 of the Act. In other words we have not to consider the validity or otherwise of the Collectors reference under the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. But the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the reference which must be taken to have been made under S. 31 of the State Act was competent and that the District Judge was in error in rejecting it as incompetent. He argued even more vigorously for the position that it was not open to the Land Acquisition Court to go into the validity of a reference made to it by the Collector; but that its duty was only to proceed with the reference made to it. If the petitioner succeeds in either of these contentions, the reference will have to go back to the court below for being heard on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sudhar Samiti, has countered both these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Court to satisfy itself at the out -set that a reference made to it by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act was competent and if it came to the conclusion that it was not, to reject it. He further urged that the reference made by the Collector was ultra vires of his powers under the Act and therefore invalid.
(3.) WE shall first deal with the question whether it is open to a Land Acquisition Court to reject a reference made to it by a Collector on the ground that it is incompetent. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on four decisions, namely, Secy of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, AIR 1929 All 769; Secy, of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, AIR 1932 All 597; Venkateshwaraswami v. Sub -Collector, Bezwada, AIR 1943 Mad 327 and Hari Krishan v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1958 Punj 490. All these decisions dealt with references under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and all of them except AIR 1943 Mad 327 (supra), are by Division Benches. All the four decisions hold that a Land Acquisition Court cannot go behind a reference made to it by the Collector and that its duty is to proceed with the reference on merits. In AIR 1929 All 769 (supra), Mukerji, J. stated the view in the following words: