Civil Appeal No 1926 of1969
From the Judgment and Decree dated S 2 68 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No 4S1 of 1964
Shaukat Hussain and Mohd Mian for the appellant
R H Dhebar and M N Shroff for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court and it involves an important question namely whether a court in dealing with a reference under s14 Sub section
1 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act 1309 Fasli corresponding to section 18 sub section
1 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can go behind the reference made by the Collector if the application on which the reference has been made is beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein
The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The case arises from that part of the erstwhile princely State of Hyderabad known as Marathwada which merged in the State of Bombay under the States Re organisation Act l956
The land belonging to the appellant admeasuring 2057 sq yards in the city of Aurangabad has been acquired by the State Government under s5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a building for the medical college at Aurangabad
The Government published a Notification under section 3 1 on the 28th of February 1958
On the 13th of January 1962 the Land Acquisition officer Aurangabad made an award directing payment of Rs 131811 P inclusive of 15 per cent solatium as compensation to the appellant at the rate of 37 np
per sq yard as against his claim for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs 10 per sq yard
The said award was communicated to the appellant on the 20th of January 1962
The appellant instead of making an application for reference under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act filed an application for review before he
Land Acquisition officer on the 5th of February 1962 requesting him to revise the award  stating further that in case it was not revised he would seek his remedy in a court of law 
The Land Acquisition 268 officer obviously felt that the amount fixed by him was too low and accordingly on the 17th of February 1962 made a recommendation through the Collector to the Secretary to the State Government that the award be reconsidered
But the Collector by his order dated the 23rd of March 1962 declined to forward the same and informed the appellant that he must seek his remedy in a court of law
Eventually on the 14th of May 1962 the appellant made an application for reference under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act and prayed that the period spent in the proceedings for the review before the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to the date of the award be excluded while considering the question of limitation under section 14 of the Limitation Act
A reference was made under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act to the District Court of Aurangabad
The Assistant Collector Aurangabad who was the Land Acquisition officer while making a reference made no expression of his opinion whether the application was time barred or not evidently taking the view that the point should be left for the decision of the court
He however while making the reference gave a complete narration of facts and left the question open
A preliminary objection was raised by the Government that the reference was incompetent the application being time barred
This objection prevailed and the contention of the appellant based on1 section 14 of the Limitation Act was negatived both by the Civil Judge Senior Division Aurangabad by his order dated the 28th of June 1962 and by the High Court of Bombay by its order dated the 5th of February 1968 holding that the time taken between the 5th of February 1962 and the 23rd of March 1962 could not be excluded while computing the period of limitation prescribed under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act inasmuch as section 14 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the proceedings and further that even if it applied the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act stating that good faith which is also a necessary ingredient under section 14 was not established
The learned Civil Judge raised an issue whether the application for reference was barred by limitation under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act and he answered that issue in the affirmative and we have no doubt whatever that his decision on that point as well as that of the High Court affirming it was right
The application was clearly out of time
Section 14 Sub section
1 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act 1309 Fasli provides that Every person interested who is displeased with the Taluqdar s award may within two months from the date of receiving notice of the award apply to the Taluqdar in writing to refer 269 the case to the court for determination whether his objection be to the measurement of the land or to the amount of the compensation or to the persons to whom it is payable or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested
 Section 15 sub section 1 enjoins that the Taluqdar in making the reference shall forward to the Court a statement in writing containing certain particulars
Sub section 2 there of provides that to the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively
It is conceded for our present purposes that section 14 sub section
1 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act is in pari materia with the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
Hence hereinafter reference will be made only to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the Act 
Learned counsel for the appellant rested his submission on the ground that the court while dealing with a reference under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act cannot go behind the reference and decline to answer it
The point regarding applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act was rightly not pressed before us
Nor was any contention raised by him that the application for review made by the appellant before the Land Acquisition officer on the 9th of February 1962 asking him to revise the award should in law be regarded as an application under section 14 sub section
1 of the Act
The short question that falls for determination in the appeal is whether the court can go into a question that the application for reference was not made to the Collector within the time prescribed in section 18 sub section
2 of the Land Acquisition Act and if so can it refuse to entertain the reference if it finds it to be barred by time
There was at one time a great divergence of judicial opinion on the question
But almost all the High Courts have now veered round to the view that the court has the power to go into the question of limitation
It not only has the power but also the duty to examine whether the application for reference was in accordance with law ie whether it was made within time prescribed under the proviso to sub section
2 of section 18 of the Act or not
The view taken by them is that a Collector s jurisdiction is circumscribed by the conditions laid down in section 18 sub section
1 that if he makes a reference even though the application for reference was not in accord 270 ance with the provisions of section 18 the court acquires no jurisdiction to hear the reference and that it can refuse to hear it if it was made on a time barred application
The matter came up twice before this Court in State of Punjab vs Mst
Qaiser Jehan Begum  Anr1 and the State of UP vs Abdul Karim2 in which the conflict of judicial opinion in the High Courts was noticed but not resolved as the Court in both the cases rested its decision on a narrower ground namely that the application for a reference was not barred by time
In Mst
Qaiser Jehan Begum s case supra it was observed In the view which We have taken on the question of limitation it is unnecessary for us to decide the other question as to whether the civil court on a reference under section 18 of the Act can go into the question of limitation
We have al ready stated that there is a conflict of judicial opinion on that question
There is no one side a line of decisions following the decision of the Bombay High Court in re
Land Acquisition Act which have held that the civil court is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference
There is on the other side a line of decisions which say that the jurisdiction of the civil court is confined to considering and pronouncing upon any one of the four different objections to an award under the Act which may have been raised in the written application for the reference
The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Secretary of State vs Bhagwan Prasad is typical of this line of decisions
There is thus a marked conflict of judicial opinion on the question This conflict we think must be resolved in a more appropriate case on a future occasion
In the case before us the question doe6 not really arise and is merely academic and we prefer not to decide the question in the present case
That question now directly arises
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that a reference to the Court having been made by the Collector the court had no jurisdiction to question the validity of that reference and was bound to decide the matter on merits
In support of this contention certain authorities have been cited to us in which it has been laid down that it is for the Collector and the Collec tor alone to determine whether to make a reference under section 18 sub section
1 and if he decides to make a reference it is not 1  2 Civi Appeal No 2434 of 1966 decided on 23 9 1969
271 open to the court to go behind the decision of the Collector and hold the reference to be out of time
Illustrative of this line of decisions is that of Allahabad High Court in Secretary of State vs Bhagwan Prasad1
That view has been reiterated by the Full Bench of the same High Court in the State of UP vs Abdul Karim2 and in its earlier decision in Panna Lal vs The Collector of Etah3 and the decisions in Venkateswaraswami vs Sub Collector Bezwada4 Hari Kishan Khosla vs State of Pepsu5
Chandravarkar J in re Land Acquisition Act6 held that it is clear from section 18 that the formalities are matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to be Collector s power of reference
He held that the court is bound to go into the question whether the reference under section 18 was within time
He also held that the court was not only entitled but bound to satisfy itself that the conditions laid down in section 18 have been complied with
In stating the principle Chandravarkar J Observed These are the conditions prescribed by the Act for the right of the party to a reference by the Collector to come into existence
They are the conditions to which the power of the Collector to make the reference is subject
They are also the conditions which must be fulfilled before the court can have jurisdiction to entertain the reference
 The principle laid down by him in that case was acted upon in Sukhbir Singh vs Secretary of State7
In that case the Collector had made a reference although there was no application before him as required by section 18 and the Division Bench held that being so there was no valid reference
But in a latter case which came before another Division Bench in Secretary of State vs Bhagwan Prasad supra it was held that it was not open to the court under section 18 to go behind the reference that it was for the Collector to decide whether the conditions justifying reference have been complied with and if he thought that they had been the court was bound to answer the reference
This view found favour with a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Venkateswaraswami vs Sub Collector Bezwada supra and a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla vs State of Pepsu supra
All these decisions clearly do not lay down good law
1 ILR 52 All
2 AIR
1963 All
3 ILR 1959 1 All
4 AIR 1943 Mad
5 ILR 1958 1 Punj
6 ILR  285 All 212
272 In State of UP vs Abdul Karim supra the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on its view of the scheme of the Act declined to follow the decision of Chandavarkar J in re Land Acquisition Act supra and the long line of decisions taking the same view
It preferred to rest its decision on the earlier view of its Full Bench in Panna Lal vs The Collector of Etah supra and that in Secretary of State vs Bhagwan prasad supra
In the light of these decisions it held that the Collector s jurisdiction to make a reference is not circumscribed by the conditions laid down in section 18 sub section
1 and 2 that if he makes a reference even though the application for reference was not in accordance with the provisions of section 18 the court acquires jurisdiction to hear the reference and that it cannot refuse to hear it even if it was made or
a time barred application
Upon its view it held that the court has no power to determine or consider a question of limitation as its jurisdiction is strictly limited by the terms of the section as laid down by the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath vs Secretary of State1
It further held that the legislature having contemplated the Collector to be an agent of the Government as that is the position assigned to him by the Privy council in Ezra vs Secretary of State for India2 his status is certainly not changed by the mere fact that he is required to make a reference under section 18 if the application is within prescribed time and complies with certain conditions
That being so even if the Collector wrongly decides that an application is within time or satisfies other conditions the Government as its principal may have a remedy against him but was bound by his act so long as it remains
The act being of the agent is their own and they are bound by it
The Government cannot therefore be permitted to contend at the hearing of the reference before the court that it was illegally made
In view of all this the Full Bench was of the view that this class of case does not fall within the class of cases where the jurisdiction of an inferior authority depends upon the existence of a certain state of facts as indicated by Lord Eshar M R in The Queen vs Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income tax1
On principle apart from authority it is difficult to accept the line of reasoning of the Allahabad High Court namely whatever might be the defects and imperfections in the reference made once it is before the court the court is debarred from enquiring into its validity or otherwise
The decision in Abdul Karim s case supra proceeds on a com 1 ILR 2 ILR 3 273 plete misunderstanding of the decision of the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath vs Secretary of State supra where the Judicial Committee interpreting section 21 observed Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections
It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector s award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection
Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation that alone is the matter referred and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it
 All that the Privy Council intended to lay down was that the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with a reference under section 18 is restricted by the terms of the section as enjoined by section 21
That decision cannot be interpreted to mean that the court while hearing a reference under section 18 cannot enquire into competency or otherwise of the reference made by the Collector ie whether the conditions precedent to the exercise of power by the Collector and therefore of the court and in particular the condition regarding limitation are fulfilled or not
In Ezra vs Secretary of State for India supra the Privy Council while dealing with the functions of the Collector in making an award under section 11 laid down that the functions of the Collector are not judicial but administrative and all that he does is to make an offer to the claimants with regard to the valuation of the property to be acquired
In that context it did not think it necessary to repeat the reasoning of the judgment under appeal where the sections and the questions as a whole were very satisfactorily stated and observed The proceedings of the Collector resulting in the award  are administrative and not judicial
The award in which the enquiry results is merely a decision binding only on the collector as to what sum I shall be tendered to the owner of the lands and if a judicial ascertainment is decided by the owner he can obtain it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to the Court
 These observations however related to proceedings under Part II of the Act and not under Part III
Ameer Ali and Stephen JJ
 in delivering the judgment under appeal explained the functions of the Collector under section 11 in Ezra vs Secretary of State for India1 where they said 1 ILR 274 throughout the proceedings the Collector acts as the agents of Government for the purposes of acquisition
He is in a sense of the term a judicial officer nor is the proceeding before him a judicial proceeding he is not a Court
The Government  at whose instance the land is being taken up is not entitled to demand a reference
The reason of this is plain
The Collector acts as the agent of the Government and they are accordingly bound by the award of their agent
 the Collector acts in the matter of the enquiry and the valuation of the land only as an agent of the Government and not as a judicial officer and  consequently although the Government  is bound by his proceedings the persons interested are not concluded by his finding regarding the value of the land or the compensation to be awarded
 On the basis of the Privy Council decision in Ezra s case supra this Court in Harish Chandra vs Deputy Land Acquisition officer1 held that the Collector in making an award acts as an agent of the Government and that the legal character of the award made by the Collector was that of a tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government
The Allahabad High Court has read more into the decision of the Privy Council in Ezra s case supra than is there
Merely because the Collector while making an award under section 11 or in serving a notice of the owner of the land under section 12 acts as an agent of the Government it does not necessarily imply that while making a reference to the court under section 18 he acts in the capacity of an agent of the Government
While it is true that the Collector in making the award under section 11 acts as an agent of the Government he in making a reference to the court under section 18 acts as a statutory authority
Section 18 sub section
1 of the Act entrusts to the Collector the statutory duty of making a reference on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein
The Collector therefore acting under section 18 is nothing but a statutory authority exercising his own powers under the section
In the context we may advert to the controversy that had arisen as a result of the Privy Council s decision in Ezra s case supra holding
that the Legislature had assigned to the Collector the position of an 1 1962 1 SCR 676
275 agent of the Government while making an award under section 11
The problem that arose was that the claimants were left with no remedy where the Collector improperly declines to make a reference although the application fulfilled the requirements of section 18
In The Administrator General of Bengal vs The Land Acquisition Collector 24 Parganas1 the Calcutta High Court while dealing with the question tried to draw a distinction between the functions of the Collector under Part Il of the Act land that under Part III and observed It is admitted that up to and including the time of making his award the Collector was in no sense a judicial officer and that the proceedings before him were not judicial proceedingsEzra vs Secretary of State and however irregular his proceedings were we cannot interfere with his award made under section 11 of the Act
But when an application is made to the Collector requiring him to refer the matter to the Civil Court the Collector may have to determine and it seems to us determine judicially whether the person making the application was represented or not when the award was made or whether a notice had been served upon the applicant under sec
122 and what period of limitation applies and whether the application is under the circumstances made within time
The Collector s functions under Part III of the Act are clearly distinguishable from those under Part II
Part III of the
Act relates to proceedings in Court
In our opinion the Collector in rejecting the application was a Court and acting judicially and his order is subject to revision by this Court
To hold otherwise would be to give finality to an award under sec
11 even in cases in which the Collector acts irregularly and contrary to law and then refuses on insufficient grounds to make a reference under Part III of the Act
The party aggrieved may be left without remedy which is implied by a judicial trial before the Judge
 These observations were no doubt made in a different context but they bear some relevance to the point at issue
The question at issue was whether the Collector s order refusing to make a reference could be interfered with by the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or section 107 of the Government of India Act 1919
The Calcutta High Court s view that the Collector s power was a judicial power and that the Collector was a Court subordinate to the High Court was obviously wrong but it persisted in taking 1 276 that view to obviate injustice Krishna Das Roy vs Land Acquisition Collector Pabna1 Upendra Nath Roy vs Province of Bengal2 Leeth Elias Joseph Solomon vs H C Stork3
The Calcutta High Court tried to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to provide the subject with a remedy
The power of the Collector to make an order under section 18 was not judicial in nature nor was the Collector a court subordinate to the High Court
The other High Court therefore expressly dissented from the view of the Calcutta High Court Abdul Sattar Sahib vs Special Deputy Collector Vizagapatnam Harbour Acquisition 4 Balkrishna Daji Gupta vs The Collector Bombay Suburban5 Jagarnath Lall vs Land Acquisition Deputy Collector Patna6 section G Sapra vs Collector Saugar7 Amar Nath Bhardwaj vs The Governor General in Council8 Kashi Pershad vs Notified Area of Mahoba9
Even the Calcutta High Court later changed its view Bhagwan Das Shah vs First Land Acquisition Collector10 Gopi Nath Shah vs First Land Acquisition Collector11 It was held that the functions of the Collector under section 18 were statutory or quasi judicial in nature
The construction placed by the Allahabad High Court on section 18 of the Act is not borne out either by the plain language of the section itself or by accepted principles
The following observations appear in Abdul Karim s case supra There is no support for the proposition that the necessary sine qua non of a reference is an application for Reference made in accordance with the provisions of section 18 There is no provision
which bars the Collector s power to make a reference if he is inclined to make one on a time barred application
If the Collector decides to make a reference the Land Acquisition Court cannot go behind the reference
 A Collector and a Collector alone has jurisdiction to make a reference and a reference by him is not a nullity merely because it is based on a time barred application
 1 2 3 4 ILR 5 ILR 6 ILR Pat 321
7 ILR 8 ILR 9 ILR 54 All 282
10 11 277 The facts regarding limitation of an application for reference are not required to be stated by the Collector in his reference and indeed he is not bound to send the application along with the reference
All that the Court has to do on receipt of the reference or can do is to hear it after giving notice of the date
The word thereupon  in Section 19 must be interpreted to mean as soon as the collector makes a reference and states for the information of the Court various matters set out in Section 19 A District Judge gets jurisdiction not from the Collector but from the receipt of a reference from him
It is the receipt of the reference that confers jurisdiction upon him and not any finding of the Collector The Court has to perform a ministerial act of causing a notice to he given to the objector
There is no provision entitling it to examine the question whether the Collector s order was correct on the question of the application having been made within the prescribed time
 The jurisdiction of the Court under the Act is a special one and strictly limited by the terms of section 18 to 21
It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector s award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection
A Court undoubtedly has certain jurisdiction over the reference but it does not include any appellate jurisdiction over the Collector in respect of the reference made by him without statutory sanction
 It is difficult to subscribe to these propositions which are not warranted by law
In his celebrated judgment in The Queen vs Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax supra Lord Esher MR while dealing with statutory Tribunals divided them into two categories namely i When an inferior court or tribunal or body which has to exercise the power of deciding facts is first established by Act of Parliament the Legislatures has to consider what powers it will give that tribunals or body
It may in effect say that if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise
There it is not for them conclusively to decide 278 whether that state of facts exists and if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence what they do may be questioned and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction
ii The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction on finding that it does exist to proceed further or do something more
When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction they also have to consider whatever jurisdiction they give them whether there shall be any appeal from their decision for other wise there will be none
 The law as enunciated by Lord Eshar has been accepted by this Court as laying down the true principle in Jagdish Prasad vs Ganga Prasad 1 The word require in section 18 of the Act implies
It carries with it the idea that the written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference
The Collector is required to make a reference under section 18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions
The first condition is that there shall be a written application by a person interested who has not accepted the award
The second condition is as to the nature of the objection is which may be taken and the third condition is as to the time within which the application shall be made
The power of the Collector to make a reference under section 18 is thus circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein and one condition is the condition regarding limitation to be found in the proviso
The conditions laid down in section 18 are matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector s power of reference  as rightly observed by Chandavarkar J in re Land Acquisition Act supra
We are inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions particularly the one regarding limitation are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists
It must accordingly be held that the making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to section 18
Sub section
2 is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector
From these considerations it follows that the court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction 1 1959 Supp 1 SCR 733 279 to hear the reference
In view of these principles we would be extremely reluctant to accept the statement of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Karim s case supra
Every tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances
Its obvious duty is to see that these facts and circumstances exist to invest it with jurisdiction and where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions under which the tribunal can function it goes without saying that before that tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen
As observed by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee vs Meer Mynoodeen Khan1 wherever jurisdiction is given to a court by an Act of Parliament and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in that Act it is a universal principle that these terms must be complied with in order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise
If an application is made which is not within time the Collector will not have the power to make a reference
In order to determine the limits of his own power it is clear that the Collector will have to decide whether the application presented by the claimant is or is not within time and satisfies the conditions laid down in section 18
Even if a reference is wrongly made by the Collector the court will still have to determine the validity of the reference because the very jurisdiction of the court to hear a reference depends on a proper reference being made under section 18 and if the reference is not proper there is no jurisdiction in the court to hear the reference
It follows that it is the duty of the court to see that the statutory conditions laid down in section 18 have been complied with and it is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference It is  only a valid reference which gives jurisdiction to the court and therefore the court has to ask itself the question whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the reference
In deciding the question of jurisdiction in a case of reference under section 18 by the Collector to the court the court is certainly not acting as a court of appeal it is only discharging the elementary duty of satisfying itself that a reference which it is called upon to decide is a valid and 1 LR 1855 6 MIA 134
280 proper reference according to the provisions of the Act under which it is made
That is a basic and preliminary duty which no tribunal can possibly avoid
The court has therefore jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub section
2 of section 18 of the Act and if it finds that it was so made decline to answer reference Beaumont C J delivering the judgment of the Division Bench in Mahadeo Krishna vs Mamlatdar of Alibag1 agreed with the view of Chandavarkar J and observed It seems to me that the Court is bound to satisfy itself that the reference made by the Collector complies with the specified conditions so as to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the reference
It is not a question of the Court sitting in appeal or revision on the decision of the Collector it is a question of the Court satisfying itself that the reference made under the Act is one which it is required to hear
If the reference does not comply with the terms of the Act then the Court cannot entertain it
I have myself some difficulty in seeing on what principle the Court is to be debarred from satisfying itself mat the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference
I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by Chandavarkar J that it is the duty of the Court to see that the statutory conditions have been complied with
 The same view has been reiterated by almost all the High Courts except the Allahabad High Court G J Desai vs Abdul Mazid Kadri2 A R Banerjee vs Secretary of State3 K N Narayanappa Naidu vs Revenue Divisional Officer Sivakasi4 State of Rajasthan vs L D Silva5 Sheikh Mohommad vs Director of Agriculture Madhya Pradesh6 Ramdeval Singh vs State of Bihar7 Anthony D Silva vs Kerala State8 Swatantra L  F Pct
Ltd vs State of Haryana9 and Swami Sukhanand vs Samaj Sudhar Samiti10 This is also the 1 TLR 2 AIR  1951 Bom 156
3 AIR 1937 Cal
4 AIR 1955 Mad
5 ILR 6 7 AIR 1969 Pat
8 AIR 1971 Ker 51
9 ILR 1974 2 Punj
10 AIR 1962 J  K 59 281 view expressed by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Abdul Sattar vs Mt Hamida Bibi1 The view to a contrary effect taken by the Allahabad High court in Secretary of State vs Bhagwan Prasad supra Panna Lal vs The Collector of Etah supra and State of UP vs Abdul Karim supra and by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Venkateswaraswami vs Sub Collector Bezwada supra and by a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla vs State of Pepsu supra clearly do not lay down good law and these decisions are therefore over ruled
It is impossible not to feel sorry for the appellant in this case who was guilty of almost incredible folly by not filing an application for reference under section 14 sub section
1 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act 1309 Fasli within the time prescribed therein and is thus precluded from claiming what may be legitimately due to him by way of compensation
But the decision must depend upon the construction of the section and the law must take its course
We trust that as assured by its counsel the State Government of Maharashtra will be generous enough to consider whether it should make an ex gratia payment to the appellant of a sufficient amount by way of compensation which will be Commensurate with the market value of the land acquired as on the 28th of February 1958
It certainly was a piece of land of some value as it was situate in the city of Aurangabad
The result therefore is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed
There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal and of the courts below
M R Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant s land was acquired by the State Government under section 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act A notification under section 31 was published on the 28th February l958 and on the 13th of January 1962 the Land Acquisition officer Aurangabad made an award directing payment of compensation inclusive of 15 solatium to the appellant at the rate of 37 np
per sq yard as against his claim for payment of compensation at the rate of RS10 per sq yard
the award was communicated to the appellant on the 20th of January 1962 and on the 5th February 1962 he filed an application for review before the Land Acquisition officer who made a recommendation through the Collector to the Secretary to the State Government that the award be reconsidered
But the Collector by his order dated the 23rd of March 1962 declined to forward the same
On the 14th of May 1962 the appellant applied for reference under section 141 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act which is in pari materia with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 praying that the period spent in the proceedings for the review be excluded while computing the period of limitation prescribed under section 14 of the Limitation Act
The Assistant Collector Aurangabad who was the Land Acquisition officer made a reference to the District Court of Aurangabad without opining Whether the application was time barred or not
The Government raised a preliminary objection the application being time barred
the reference was incompetent
The objection prevailed both the District Court and the High Court
The appellant contended that while dealing with a reference under section 141 of the Hyderabad Act the court cannot go into the question that the application was time barred under section 182 of the and Acquisition Act 1894 and tbereby refuse to entertain the reference
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 The power of the Collector to make a reference under section 18 is circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein
These conditions are matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector s power of reference
The fulfilment of these conditions particularly the one regarding limitation are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists
Therefore the making of are application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to section 182 is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector
269G H Z71B 278FGl Abdul Sattar Sahib vs Special Dy
Collector Vizagapatam Harbour Acquisition ILR  BalKrishna Daji Gupta vs The CollectorBom 18 817SCI 79 266 bay Suburban ILR  Jagarnath Lall vs Land Acquisition Dy
Collector Patna ILR Pat 321 section G Sapre vs Collector Saugar ILR  Amar Nath Bhardwaj vs The Governor General in Council ILR  Kashi Parshad vs Notified Area of Mahoba ILR 54 All 282 Bhagwan Dass Shall vs First Land Acquisition Collector  and Gopi Nath Shah vs first Land Acquisition Collector  approved
Of State vs Bhagwan Prasad ILR 51 All 96 State of UP vs Abdul Karim AIR 1963 All
556 Panna Lal vs The Collector of Etah ILR l959 1 All
628 Venkateshwarasawami vs Sub Collector Bezwada AIR 1943 Mad 327 and Hari Krishan Khosla vs State of Pepsu ILR 19S8 1 Punj
844 over ruled
Krishna Das Roy vs Land Acquisition Collector Pabna  Upendra Nath Roy vs Province of Bengal  Leath Elias Joseph Solomon vs H C Stork  disapproved
Pramatha Nath vs Secretary of State ILR  Ezra vs Secretary of State for India ILR and ILR  Harish Chandra vs Deputy Land Acquisition officer 1962 1 SCR 676 and The Administrator General of Bengal vs The Land Acquisition Collector 24 Parganas  referred to
Where the tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the condition under which the tribunal can function it is bound to see that such statutory conditions have been complied with
The court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special juris diction it us its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein
279B C D Even if a reference is wrongly made by the Collector the court will still have to determine its validity because the very jurisdiction of the court to hear a reference depends on a proper reference being made under section l8 and if the reference is not proper there is no jurisdiction in the court
to hear the reference
The court has jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub section
2 of section 18 of he Act and if it finds that it was so made deoline to answer reference
279EG The Queen vs Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income Tax LR  Jagdish Prasad vs Ganga Prasad 1959 Supp 1 SCR 733 and Nusserwanfee Pestonjee vs Meer Mynoodeen Khan LR 1855 6 MIA 134 applied
Land Acquisition Act ILR  Sukhbir Singh vs Secretary of State ILR 49 All 212 Mahadeo Krishna vs Mamlatdar of Alibag ILR  G J Desai vs Abdul Mazid Kadri AIR l951 Bom
156 A R Banerjee vs Secy
of State AIR 1937 Cal
680 K N Narayanappa Naidu vs Revenue Divisional officer Sivakasi AIR 195S Mad 20 State of Rajasthan vs L D Silva ILR 19S6  Sheikh Mohommad vs Director of Agri culture MP  Ramdeval Singh vs State of Bihar AIR 1969 Pat 131 Anthony D  Silva vs Kerala State AIR l971 Ker 51 Swatantra L  F Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana ILR 1974 2 Punj
7S Swami Sukhanand vs Samaj Sudhar Samiti AIR 1962 J  K 59 and Abdul Sattar vs Mt Hamida Bibi Pak
LR l95O Lah
568 FB approved
267 State of Punjab vs Cst
Qaisar Jahan Begam  Anr   and A State of UP vs Abdul Karim CA No 24341966 decided on 
3 9 1969 referred to
Secretary of State vs Bhagwan Prasad ILR 52 All 96 State of UP vs Abdul Karim AIR 1963 All 556 Pannalal vs True Collector of Etah ILR 11959 1 All
628 Venkateswaraswami vs Sub Collector Bezwada AIR 1943 Mad 327 and Hari Krishna Khosla vs State of Pepsu ILR 1958 1 Punj 8S4 over ruled