Hazara Singh and others vs The State of Punjab

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is an appeal against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge exercising the powers of a District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act.

The reference was made by the Collector to the District Judge and the learned Judge has declined to interfere in the reference on the ground that the claimant received the amount of compensation without protest, and in view of the clear provisions of section 31(2), second proviso, Land Acquisition Act, he was not entitled to claim a reference. The claimant being dissatisfied has come up in appeal to this Court.

Mr. Sachdeva Learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that once a reference is made, the Court has no jurisdiction to, reject it as incompetent but must decide the reference. The Learned Counsel relied on Hari Krishan Khosla Vs. State of Pepsu, . So far as this case is concerned, it has no bearing on the present controversy. There, the question was as to whether the reference application was within time or not. The Collector has the undoubted power of extending the period of limitation for sufficient cause and if he chooses to make a reference when the application u/s 18 is outside limitation, he must be deemed to have condoned the delay. It is in that situation that it is not open to the Court, to which reference is made, to sit on the judgment of the Collector because there the function of the Court is to answer the reference. So far as the present case is concerned, here there is a clear bat to an Application u/s 18. There is no power u/s 18 given to the Collector to make a reference suo motu though such power is available to the Collector u/s 30. So far as the latter part of the observations is concerned, reference may be made to Suresh Chandra Roy Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chinsurah,

The last contention of the Learned Counsel is based on sub-section (3) which has been added to section 18. This provision confers a revisional power on the High Court to examine the validity of an order by the Collector u/s 18. It is contended that if a party does not avail of his revisional remedy, he is estopped from raising a contention when a reference has teen made to a District Judge, to challenge the reference on that basis. l am unable to agree with this contention. No Court will let an order stand which is without jurisdiction when it is brought to its notice, It may be another matter that the party''s right to bring that matter to the notice of the Court is barred, but if the Court otherwise comes across an order which is wholly without jurisdiction it is its imperative duty to set it aside. In any event, no, application was competent u/s 18 in view of the fact that the claimant had accepted the compensation without protest. The Collector could pass no order u/s 18 and, therefore, there would be no valid reference before the District Judge. In any event, the object of section 31(2), second proviso, is that a person who accepts compensation without protest in fact accepts the award and the compensation, and a person who has accepted the award and compensation given by the Collector cannot challenge that award. The rule of estoppel will step in.

On either view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal. The same fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.