KANTIMAHANTI RAMAMURTHI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, HARBOUR ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no ground for this revision at all. The land acquisition Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference being made to it by the Collector, and its jurisdiction is confined to disposing of the matters so referred. It has no jurisdiction under the Act to consider the legality of the acquisition or of the reference. A very similar case to this is reported in Raghunath Das v. Collector of Dacca [1910] 11 C. L. J. 612 where Mukerjee, J., observes at page 615: It is clear from Section 18 and other sections which follow it that the question of the legality of the acquisition was never intended by the Legislature to form the subject of inquiry by the land acquisition Judge.

(2.) I respectfully agree with that view. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs: one set for each respondent. The lower Court will proceed to dispose of the reference on the points raised in it, according to law.

(3.) As the learned vakil for the petitioner stated that he had not had a proper opportunity to argue all the points he wanted to raise, the case was posted to be spoken to again with the consent of the learned Government Pleader. I have heard further arguments, but they are all untenable and I have not altered my opinion of the case.