A.K. SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the owner of a premises in Ward No. 7 of the Goimbatore Municipality. The premises consisted of a house in the occupation of tenants. This property was acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act (Act No. I of 1894). At the appellant's request, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application for a reference made by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act was not made within the time prescribed in the proviso to that section and that therefore the reference was barred by limitation. The learned Judge also held that on the basis of the materials placed before him the appellant had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer a fair and equitable price.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation is not correct and that the Sub -Judge had no power to go into the question of limitation. In this case, the award was passed on 12th March, 1941, and notice of the award under Section 12(2) was served on the claimant on 29th March, 1941, by affixture. The appellant alleged that thereafter he filed on 10th September, 1941, an application asking for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. This was disbelieved by the Collector as well as by the learned Subordinate Judge and there is no reason for us to differ from the conclusion of facts. But the appellant certainly filed an application for reference on 25th September, 1941, which was received by the Collector on 26th September, 1941. This application is beyond six menths from the date of the Collector's award dated 12th March, 1941. Under Section 18 the proviso prescribing limitation is as follows:

(3.) BUT in this case the Collector has made a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and in the letter accompanying the reference statement which is expressly made part of the reference, the Collector has pointed out that the application under Section 18 by the petitioner is out of time, having been made more than six months from the date of the award. The question that arises for determination in this case is whether in these circumstances the learned Subordinate Judge to whom the reference was made had jurisdiction to consider the question of limitation. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, once the Collector makes a reference, the Court to which the reference is made is precluded from going into the question whether the application is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel contends that the scope of the enquiry by the Court to which the reference is made is limited by Section 21 to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection, and he further argues that this does not include a consideration of this question of limitation. It is also pointed out that under Section 19 which states what is to be contained in the reference statement by the Collector, there is nothing to indicate that the question of limitation is to be referred to the Court. In support of this argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant has cited Secretary of State for India in Council v. Bhagwan Prasad, I.L.R.(1929) All.96. 209 :, I.L.R. 47 Mad. 357 . That decision lays down that when a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider whether the application in pursuance of which it was made was made within the period of limitation or not. Mukerji, J., in that case states: