Skip to content


Bhuyan Abdul Mahatab Khan Vs. Bhuyan Abdul Seheed Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 352 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Ori84; 42(1976)CLT1238
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30
AppellantBhuyan Abdul Mahatab Khan
RespondentBhuyan Abdul Seheed Khan and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra and ;S. Rath, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAddl. Govt. Adv. and ;Sk. Rahenoma, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredIn Mahanta Narayan Das v. Kasinath Pani
Excerpt:
.....statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the..........18 and 30 of the said act claiming share in the compensation. this petition was rejected;by the land acquisition officer as the award has not been passed in favour of the petitioner and there cannot be any reference to the civil court. this order is not sustainable.2. if there is a petition under section 18 of the land acquisition act, the collector under the act is bound to send the reference to civil court under section 19 of the act. he has no jurisdiction to refuse to refer, in chintada kasiviswanadham v sub-collector, berhampur, (1960) 26 cut lt 552 = (air 1961 orissa 39), a division bench of this court has held that if conditions under section 18 of the land acquisition act are fulfilled, then the collector is bound to make a reference to the district judge. the appropriate.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.K. Das, J.

1. The petitioner in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act filed a petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the said Act claiming share in the compensation. This petition was rejected;by the Land Acquisition Officer as the award has not been passed in favour of the petitioner and there cannot be any reference to the civil court. This order is not sustainable.

2. If there is a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector under the Act is bound to send the reference to civil court under Section 19 of the Act. He has no jurisdiction to refuse to refer, in Chintada Kasiviswanadham v Sub-Collector, Berhampur, (1960) 26 Cut LT 552 = (AIR 1961 Orissa 39), a Division Bench of this Court has held that if conditions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are fulfilled, then the Collector is bound to make a reference to the District Judge. The appropriate court at that time was that of the District Judge and, as such, this Court held that reference was to be made to the District Judge. But there has been subsequent notification and the Subordinate Judge is also now empowered to entertain and decide such reference.

In Mahanta Narayan Das v. Kasinath Pani, (1968) 34 Cut LT 173 = (AIR 1968 Orissa 94) it has been held as follows:

'the expression 'claiming an interest' puts emphasis on laying a claim. On investigation the claim may be true or fictitious. The Land Acquisition Officer would accept a true claim and not a fictitious one. He is, however, not the final authority to dispose of the claim if a reference under Section 18 is sought. The nature and character of the claim is to be finally determined by the competent Court to whom the reference is made under Section 18. Doubtless it was open to the Land Acquisition Officer to examine in the first instance whether the petitioner had a true claim to be accepted on the basis of which compensation was payable. But once the petitioner's claim was negatived and he did not accept the award, reference at his instance is bound to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 and cannot be rejected on his own finding that the claim is fictitious. Refusal to make a reference on his own finding that the claim is fictitious is denying the exercise of a jurisdiction vested in him under Section 18.'

3. In view of the aforesaid dictum of this Court, the order of the Land Acquisition Officer is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the result, the civil revision is allowed. The order dated 2-9-1975 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Balasore isset aside. There will be no order as to costs.


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