Special Tahsildar and Another vs Thazhekandiyil Kallu

K. Narayana Kurup, J.—This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 14598 of 1996 allowing the Original Petition and holding that the question as to whether reference application was preferred in time or not is to be considered by the reference court and not by the Collector. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The Respondent herein is the wife of late Mundiyan Kunhikannan who passed away on 5th April 1994. An extent of 0.0189 hectares of land in Survey No. 68/8-A and an extent of 0.0094 hectares of land in Survey No. 68/9 of Kadambur amsom was acquired from the possession of the Respondent''s husband pursuant to an Award dated 18th March 1994. According to the Respondent, the compensation awarded was too low and hence application was made for reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act''). The said application for reference was rejected by the Tahsildar, the 1st Appellant herein vide Ext. P-2 communication dated 10th July 1996 on the ground that it was filed beyond the time fixed u/s 18 of the Act. As already noticed the award was passed on 18th March 1994. Notice of award was served on the Respondent''s husband on 19th March 1994. The Respondent filed Ext. P-1 application dated 30th December 1995 at the office of the 1st Appellant on 2nd January 1996 contending that the compensation awarded was inadequate and requesting for referring the matter to reference court. The said application was rejected by Ext. P-2 proceedings of the 1st Appellant herein dated 10th July 1996 on the ground that the application was filed beyond the time fixed u/s 18 of the Act. Being aggrieved by Ext. P-2 the Respondent moved this Court contending that the question of limitation is to be considered by the Land Acquisition Court and not by the first Appellant herein. The learned Single Judge held that the question as to whether the application was submitted in time or not is to be considered by the reference court and not by the Collector. It was also directed to refer the Respondent''s case to the competent civil court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the memorandum of appeal it is submitted that the aforesaid direction has been complied with and the appeal is filed in order to settle the legal issue involved in the case.

Having heard learned Counsel on both sides and having perused the judgment under challenge we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Reference to Court.-

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made,-

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award;

(b) in other, cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12, Sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire.

From the aforesaid statutory provision it is crystal clear that the reference application to the Collector must be made within six weeks from the date of Collector''s award. Moreover, the reference is to be made by the Collector to the court. Therefore, the condition precedent for referring the application to the court is that it must be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award to the Collector, Construing Section 18 of the Act the apex Court in Smt. Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another, observed that under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 the application in writing has to be made within the limitation prescribed u/s 18(2) to the Land Acquisition Officer objecting to either extent of the land, classification, value of the land or apportionment of the compensation and upon receipt thereof reference to Court would be made. Thereunder, the applicant shall be required to state the grounds on which he/she objects to the compensation, etc. According to the court, a valid reference is a pre-condition for the Civil Court to adjudicate the objections raised in the reference application. It was further held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine higher compensation, as laid down u/s 23 of the Act, would arise only when a valid reference has been made u/s 18 within the prescribed limitation and the jurisdiction of the Court is founded on a valid reference. According to the apex court, making an application in writing under Sub-section (1) and within the limitation prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference u/s 18; only on its receipt, u/s 20 Civil Court gets jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to conduct enquiry, as contemplated under the Act. In another ruling reported in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Another Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others, the Supreme Court held that the Collector, when he makes the reference, acts as a statutory authority and not as a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act meaning thereby that the Limitation Act will not apply to proceedings before the Collector while dealing with an application for reference u/s 18 of the Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in Kannan v. Land Acquisition Officer 1997 (1) KLT 768 held that if an application for reference is filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 18, the Land Acquisition Officer has no duty to send the same to the court. In the light of the categoric pronouncement by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the question, the reliance by the learned Single Judge on the various decisions referred to in the judgment viz. Ishabhai Umarbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , Pali Ram v. State (1994) 2 P.L.R. 184 and Idicheria Sosa, Pulippara Vs. State, for his conclusion that the question of limitation has to be considered by the reference court is, with great respect, misplaced. Accordingly, we haVe no hesitation in holding that if an application for reference is filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 18 of the Act, the land Acquisition Officer is not bound to send the same to the Civil Court. We further hold that the question as to whether the application was submitted in time or not is a matter to be considered by the Collector and not by the reference court.

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is impugned here and allow the appeal as prayed.