GOPINATH SHAH Vs. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued under the provision of Section 115, Civil P.C. upon the Land Acquisition Collector of Calcutta to show cause why his order dated 24 November 1937 rejecting the petitioner's application for reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, should not be set aside. The Collector refused the petitioner's prayer for reference on the ground that he had received Be. 300 out of the compensation money awarded to him with, out protest. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the opposite party that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C and consequently the application for revision is not maintainable in law.

(2.) Section 115 of the Code authorizes this Court to revise the orders of the Court subordinate to this Court. In order to enable this Court to interfere with an order under Section 115 of the Code, it must be shown (1) that the order sought to be reviewed is that of a Court and (2) that such Court is subordinate to this Court. There is a divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether the Collector while dealing under Section 18 is a Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. The conflicting views expressed in the reported oases are: (1) A Collector acts as an administrative officer when making a reference under Section 18 and is therefore not a Court: see Bhajani Lal V/s. Secy. of State , Balkrishna Daji Gupta v. Collector, Bombay Suburban (1923) 10 AIR Bom 290, M.H. Mayet V/s. Land Acquisition Collector, Myingyan (1934) 21 AIR Rang 118 and Bhagaban Das Shah V/s. First Land Acquisition Collector A Collector acts judicially while dealing with an application under Section 18 but is not a Court: see Abdul Sattar Sahib V/s. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam (1924) AIR Mad 442 and Bhajani Lal V/s. Secy. of State A Collector acts judicially while acting under Section 18 and is a Court: see The Administrator-General of Bengal V/s. The Land Acquisition Collector 24 Parganas (1908) 12 CWN 241, Krishna Das Roy V/s. Land Acquisition Collector Pabna (1912) 16 CWN 327, Leath Elies Joseph Solomon V/s. H. C. Stork and Ahmad All Khan V/s. Secy. of State (1932) 19 AIR Oudh 180.

(3.) On the question whether the Collector (assuming that he is a Court while dealing with applications under Section 18 is a Court) is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has observed as follows: Assuming that the Collector is a Court, is he a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C.? In my judgment, he is not. There is no power of appeal from his decision to any one, either to the District Court or to this Court. There is nothing in the Act to show that he is in the true sense of the word in any way subordinate to the High Court. As far as Madras is concerned, the Courts recognized are those Courts which are referred to in various statutes, such as the Madras Civil Courts Act. His Court, if a Court at all, must be Civil Court. The Civil Courts are enumerated in the Civil Courts Act and the Court of the Collector sitting under the Land Acquisition Act finds no place in the enumeration. On the whole, I think, I must come to the conclusion that even if the Collector, exorcising his functions under Section 19 although those functions are as I have pointed out, judicial functions, is a Court, ha is not a Court subordinate to the High Court: Abdul Sattar Sahib V/s. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam (1924) AIR Mad 442 at p. 367.