IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Civil Revision No. 2,3 /20li Mls ESam-sW i'!Si !^T ri' ^ ^^ -^/^ r^~/'/y ./' ^•'^ / n/ ^'•v RESPONDENTS 4] 21- /' 3> Smt. Sushila Devi Jain, W/o. Rajkumar Jain, aged about 57 years, R/o. Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Smt. Bharti Jain, W/o. Santosh Kumar 'Jain, aged about 44 years, R/o. Main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Dilip Kumar Lukkad, S/o. Pannalal Lukkad, aged about 39 years, R/o. Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Pradeep Kumar Lukkad, S/o. Pannalal Lukkad, aged about 42 years, R/o. Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary (Reveaue), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub- Divisional i.0fficer, Revenue), Sub- Division, Jagdalpur, Distrrct Bastar CFVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION llR OF CFVIL PROCEDURE CODE WITH SECTION l6f.l) OF THE LAND AGQUISITION ACT. 1804 r w <,' Smt. Sushila Devi Jain and others. Versiis State of Chhattisaarh and others. CiViL REV1SJON UNDER SECTiON 115 OF CODE OF CIViL PROCEDURE WfTH SECTION 18f3) OF THE LAND ACQUiSITIONACT.1894 ISingje Bench: Hon'bie Shri'N.K. Aganyal. JJ *resent : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appiicants. Shri G.D. Vasv/ani, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. iL ith day of The jegaiity and propriety of the order dated 28-12-2010 passed by Coilector and District Magistrate, District Bastar, Jagdaspur is under assail in the instant revision. 2. Brlef facts of fhe case are as under: The appi'ication filed by the applicanfs before respondent No.2 under • Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for reference of dispute regarding amount of compensation to-the District Court was dismissed on the ground that Vi/rit petition, writ appeai and SLP flled by the appllcants v/ere dismissed; and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot enfertain the above appiication. Hence this revision. 3. . Learned counsel far the appiicants wouid submit: 'while entertaining the applicafion under Section 18 of the Act, the Collector has to consider whether or not the application is in accordance with Section 18 of the Act and thereafteF, he has to refer the rpatter to the District Judge. So far as challenge to notlfication undep Sections 4 & 6 of the Act by the appiicants is concerned, it was totaily a different cause of acfion. It was not at all related 'A'ith the right of the applicants for re-determinatlon of 1 ^ compensation by making prayer for reference under Section 18 oftheAct. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents could not dispute the above iegal position. s-o. 1 have heard iearned counsei for the partles and perused the order Impugned; 6. Section 18 of the Land Acqulsition Act, reads as under: 18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Coiiector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether hts objection be to the measurement of the iand, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom.it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The appiication shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shail be (a) if the person making It was present or represented before the Collector at the time 'A'hen he made his award, within six weeks -from the date ofthe Coliector'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 withln six months from the date ofthe Coilector's avi'ard, vrfhichever period shall nrst expire." 7. Sf. any. application for reference of the matter for re- determination-'regarding quantum of compensation is fiied before the Collector, the Collector has to see whether t'ne appiication is filed in accordance wlth the provisions contained In Section 18 of .-fr "r' Kw the Act or not? and if the application is in accordance with the provision contained in the Section, he has to refer the matter to the District Judge. This Court and Hon'bte the Supreme Court have not decided the dispute under Section 18 of the Act and vide their orders, the petitioners' challsnge to notification under Sections 4 & Softhe Act was rejected. 8. Without considering the above question, respondenf No.2 has passed the order impugned which appears to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the revislon deserves to be and is hereby aliowed. The order impugned Is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector to decide the appiication flied under Section 18 of ths Act, in accordance with law. Sd'- I.K. Agarwa! Judae