(1.) The appellant was the owner of a premises in Ward No. 7 of the Goimbatore Municipality. The premises consisted of a house in the occupation of tenants. This property was acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act (Act No. I of 1894). At the appellant's request, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application for a reference made by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act was not made within the time prescribed in the proviso to that section and that therefore the reference was barred by limitation. The learned Judge also held that on the basis of the materials placed before him the appellant had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer a fair and equitable price.
(2.) It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation is not correct and that the Sub-Judge had no power to go into the question of limitation. In this case, the award was passed on 12 March, 1941, and notice of the award under Section 12(2) was served on the claimant on 29 March, 1941, by affixture. The appellant alleged that thereafter he filed on 10 September, 1941, an application asking for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. This was disbelieved by the Collector as well as by the learned Subordinate Judge and there is no reason for us to differ from the conclusion of facts. But the appellant certainly filed an application for reference on 25 September, 1941, which was received by the Collector on 26 September, 1941. This application is beyond six menths from the date of the Collector's award dated 12 March, 1941. Under Section 18 the proviso prescribing limitation is as follows: Provided that every such application shall be made--(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, Sub- section 2, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
(3.) If the Collector had given effect to this proviso and refused to make a reference on that ground, no Court could have interfered with that order of refusal. In Abdul Satar Sahib v. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam Harbour Acquisition (1923) 46 M.L.J. 209 : I.L.R. 47 Mad. 357 (F.B.), a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the High Court has no power to revise the order of a Collector, acting under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, refusing to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 in a matter upon which he had passed an award.