Skip to content


Samanta Radha Prasanna Das Vs. the Province of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 23 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Ori98; 18(1952)CLT196
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 18(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantSamanta Radha Prasanna Das
RespondentThe Province of Orissa
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Parija, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - notice of the award was accordingly issued under section 12(2), land acquisition act, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-7-48. the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded &, therefore, filed his objection on 3-9-48 which was within the time prescribed under section 18(2)(b) of the act. 2. it is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the collector, while acting under the land acquisition act is not an order of a court subordinate to..........at the time the award was made. notice of the award was accordingly issued under section 12(2), land acquisition act, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-7-48. the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded &, therefore, filed his objection on 3-9-48 which was within the time prescribed under section 18(2)(b) of the act. the collector, however, overruled his objection and refused to make a reference to the court of the district judge under section 18(1) of the act, on the ground that the objection was barred by time-it is against this order of refusal to make a reference that the petitioner has come up in revision to this court.2. it is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the collector, while acting under the land acquisition act is not an order of a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner is the owner of plot No. 42 in village Srikrishuapur measuring 14 and odd acres. This plot was acquired under Land Acquisition Act by the Collector and an award was passed on 20-7-48. The petitioner was not present at the time the award was made. Notice of the award was accordingly issued under Section 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-7-48. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded &, therefore, filed his objection on 3-9-48 which was within the time prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. The Collector, however, overruled his objection and refused to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18(1) of the Act, on the ground that the objection was barred by time-It is against this order of refusal to make a reference that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

2. It is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the Collector, while acting under the Land Acquisition Act is not an order of a Court subordinate to this Court and that his order is not open to revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitioner has, therefore, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari so that the mistake committed by the Collector may be recitified. As against this, however, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has got the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and that the Collector, exercising his powers under the Land Acquisition Act, is a tribunal over whom this Court has got the power of superintendence. The order of the Collector being manifestly opposed to law has resulted in great injustice to the petitioner and it is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to rectify the mistake and afford relief to the petitioner.

3. The order of the Collector refusing to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge is set aside and he is directed to make a reference in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the District Judge.

4. This petition is allowed accordingly withcosts. Hearing fee one gold Mohur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //