JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated August 26, 1981 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar Camp at Bhatina, whereby he refused to accept the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) not having been submitted within time.
2. It is not disputed that the land of the petitioners along with the land of several other persons was acquired by the Union of India for Bhatinda Cantonment. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave an award on June 11, 1975 under Section 11 of the Act. The Petitioners felt dis-satisfied with the award aforementioned and moved an application in writing on June 29, 1975 seeking a reference to the District Judge, Bhatinda under Section 18 of the Act. According to the petitioners, the said application was submitted by them in the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Military Lands, Bhatinda. However, to their utter surprise, the same was not forwarded to the District Judge, Bhatinda under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners enquired the matter from the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Military Lands, Bhatinda, and thereupon they were called by the Special Land Acquisition Collector vide his letter dated 11.2.1981 to appear before him at Jalandhar on 20.2.1981. The petitioners appeared before him on the above mentioned date, but they were again called to appear on July 10, 1981 in Civil Rest House, Bhatinda. The petitioners appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Collector on July 10, 1981 as well and made their statements. Their requests have, however, been turned down by the authority vide impugned order dated August 26, 1981 on the premise that from the register maintained in the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Bhatinda, no entry regarding receipt of the application alleged to have been submitted by the petitioners under Section 18 o the Act was found.
3. I have heard Shri R.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anil Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Rupinder Wasu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 2 and have perused the record.
4. It appears from the order dated 26.8.1981 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector that there as, in fact, an application submitted by the petitioners seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act in relation to their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. It further appears that the contention of the petitioners, as if the said application was submitted by them on June 29, 1975, was found to be incorrect on an appreciation of the entries made in the receipt register of the office of the Naib Tehsildar, which is undoubtedly maintained in the course of usual official duties. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is, therefore, beyond the jurisdictional scope of this Court to reappraise the aforesaid findings and/or to return a firm finding of fact as to whether the aforesaid application was submitted by the petitioners on June 29, 1975 or not.
5. However, the fact remains that at the time when the learned Special Land Acquisition Collector while performing of his duties under Section 11 of the Act, passed the impugned order, there was an application moved by the petitioners seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The obvious question which arises for consideration is as to whether the said application could be turned down by the learned Collector on the premises that it was not submitted within time.
6. The issue is no longer res-integra. This Court in Dharampal v. Collector land Acquisition Urban Development, Punjab S.A.S, Nagar (Mohali), 1987 P.L.J. 263, and Pali Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula, (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 184, has held that it is totally beyond the jurisdictional scope of the Land Acquisition Collector to reject a reference under Section 18 of the Act being barred by limitation. In other words, it is for the reference court, namely, the District Judge to look into this aspect and adjudicate upon the issues arising out of the said reference including the one as to whether the reference was barred by the limitation or not. The Special Land Acquisition Collector needs not to have taken this task to himself to adjudicate upon the issue of limitation and ought to have kept it open as the same exclusively falls within the domain of the Reference Court under the Act.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated August 26, 1981 is set aside and a direction is issued to the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Bhatinda to make reference of the application moved by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Bhatinda for adjudication within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Civil Revision is disposed of in the terms mentioned above. No order as to costs.