SRI VENKATESWARASWAMI VARU OF BEZWADA, BY TRUSTEES RAMPILLA APPALASWAMI Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the managing trustees of the temple of Sri Venkateswara Swami Varu of Bezwada for revising the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in O. P. No. 33 of 1937 holding that a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Sub-Collector of Bezwada was incompetent and that the subject-matter of the reference cannot be enquired into by him. Certain properties of the temple were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made on the 16 May, 1937. The temple had then only two trustees holding the office and a third trustee was appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 4 May, 1937, for a period of five years from that day. But he seems to have got the order actually subsequent to 31 May, 1937. He gave an application to the Land Acquisition Officer on 1 October, 1937, requesting him as Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act as the amount fixed by the award was insufficient. He also disputed the correctness of the area and measurements of the land as given in the award. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on the 24 November, 1937, making the reference to the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. But he sent ft to the Subordinate Judge with a letter dated 7 December, 1937. It was contended before the learned Subordinate Judge by the Government Pleader that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make the reference as the person who gave the application was not a person interested and that the application was given out of time. It was pleaded for the claimants that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether a reference was in order or not and that the only jurisdiction which the Court had was to consider whether the area and measurements were correctly given and the amount awarded was adequate.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge found that he had jurisdiction to go into the matter, that the application was made out of time and that the person could not be said to be a person interested. He therefore held that the reference was incompetent and the subject-matter of the reference could not be enquired into. Hence this petition to revise the order.

(3.) The points for consideration therefore are (1) whether the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of the reference and (2) if so, whether he was right in finding that the application was not made by a person interested and was out of time.