LexMOHAMMAD HASNUDDIN versus STAIB OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, _, I " ' • -- MOHAMMAD HASNUDDIN v. STAIB OF MAHARASHTRA November 7, 1978 (JASWANT SINGH, R. S. PATHAK AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 265 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 14 and 18-Power of Collector to n1ake a reference under s. 18 circumscribed by fulfilment of conditions laid down therein-Duty and jurisdiction of court to go behind the reference niade on tim~ barred application and decline to answer it. The appellant's land was acquired by the State Government under s. 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, A notification under s. 3 (!) was pub- lished on the 28th February, 1958 and on the 13th of January, 1962 the Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, ·made an award directing payment of com~ pensation inclusive of 15% solatium to the appellant at the rate of 37 n.p. per sq. yard as against his claim for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- 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 s. 14(1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act which is in pari materia with s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .. 1894, praying that the period spent in the proceedings for the review be excluded while com· puling the period of limitation prescribed under s. 14 of the Limitation Act. The Assistant Collector, Aurangabad, who w~ the Land Acquisition Officer, made a reference to the Disttict Court of Awangabad, without opining whether tbe llPPlication was time barred or not. The Government ra:ised a preliminary obiection that the application being time barred. the reference was ~compet!;:nt. The objection prevailed, both in the District Court and the High Court. A B c D E The appellant contended that while dealing with a reference under s. 14(1) F oi the Hyderabad Ac~ the court cannot go into the question that the appli- cation was time barred nnder s. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereby refuse to entertu•in the reference. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: (I) The power of the Collector to make a reference under s. 18 is circumscribed by the collditions laid down therein. These conditions G are ~tters of substance ~nd their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector's power of reference. The fultilment of these conclitions, parti- cularly the one regarding limitation are the conditions, subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists. Therefore, the making of an a pplica.fion for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to s. 18 (2) ' 0 is a sine qua non for a valid reference '1Y the Collector. [l69Q-H, 27!B, 278F- G] a _Abdul Sattar Sahib v. Special Dy. Col/ector, Vizagapatam Harbour Acqui- sition .• ILR 47 Mad. 357 (Fil); Ba/krish1111 Daji Gupta v. The Collector, Bom- IS-817~ 79 A B 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. bay Suburban, ILR 47 Born. 699; Jagarnath Lall v. Land Acquisition Dy. Col- lector Patna, ILR Pat. 321; S. G. Sapre v. Collector Saugar, ILR 1938 Nag. 149; ·Amar Nath Bhardwaj v. The Governor General in Council, II.R 1941 Lah. 100; Kashi Parshad v. Notified Area of Mahoba, ILR 54 All 282, Bhag- wan Dass Shah v. First Land Acquisition Collector, [19371 41 CWN 1.301, and Gopi Nath Shah v. First Land Acquisition Collector, [1937) 41 CWN 212; approved. Secy. of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, !LR 51 All. 96; State of U.P. v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1963 All. 556; Panna Lal v. The Collector of Etah, !LR '[1959) 1 All. 628; Venkateshwarasawami v. Sub-Collector, Bezwada, AIR 1943 Mad. 327 and Qari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu, ILR [1958) 1 Punj. 854; over-ruled. • Krishna. Das Roy v. Land Acquisiifon Collector Pabna, 16 CWN 327; C Upendra Nath Roy v. Province of Bengal, 45 CWN 792; Leath Elias Joseph Solomon v. H. C. Stork, 38 CWN 844; disapproved. ~ D E F G H Pramatha Nath v. Secretary of State, ILR 57 Cal. 1148; Ezra v. Secretary of State for India ILR 32 Cal. 605 and ILR 30 Cal. 36; Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, [1962] 1 SCR 676; and The Administrator General of Bengal v. The Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas, [1907-8] 12 C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.