ORDER
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents.
2. Writ petitioner-respondents had come to this Court in Writ Petition No. 9538 of 1982 questioning the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVIII of 1923 and further amended by the Visakhapatnam Steel Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act XX of 1972. This Court, on 4-12-1985, ordered as follows:
“This order, however, does not preclude the authorities from issuing a fresh notification. If they intend to do so, they could do so within three months from today.”
3. A fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued, however, vide G.O.Rt.No.1141, Industries & Commerce (SP) department, dated 15-9-1989 and published in gazette part I – extraordinary No358, dated 25-9-1989 for acquisition. The petition i.e., Writ Petition No. 6254 of 1990 has been disposed of by a learned single Judge of the Court in which he has noted the contentions of the parties and ordered as follows:
“It may be pointed out that the present impugned notification is challenged only on the ground that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value as on 1-4-1966. But, in view of the judgment of this Court striking down the provisions of the Visakahapatnam steel Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, the petitioners Will be entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value as on the date of the impugned notification viz., 15-9-1989. In view of this position, the petitioners have no grievance for acquisition of the land. Therefore, I need not go into the question whether the power of the 2nd respondent to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is in any way curtailed by the observation made by this Court.”
4. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation), Steel Plant, has preferred this appeal.
5. It is indeed not at all permissible, in our opinion, for a person questioning the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) which is only a notification of the intention to acquire the land as to how compensation will be finally determined by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Any person interested can object to the award under Section 18 of the Act on various grounds including the quantum of compensation and all incidental questions accordingly will be decided by the Collector in exercise of his power under Section 18 of the Act and in case all grievances are not removed by the Collector, it is obvious he has no option but to refer the matter to Civil Court. It is well settled that all acts of the Collector under the Act are administrative upto the state of the award under Section 11 of the Act. His jurisdiction under Section 18, however, is statutory and thus quasi-judicial and he is legally bound to take notice of all conditions precedent to the acquisition and compensation and accordingly refer the objections or claims, if not fully met, to the Civil Court. Since the proceedings for acquisition have started afresh, it is obvious the Collector is required to make a fresh award. This Court, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not and, in our opinion, cannot decide what finally will be determined after objections are filed and only in cases of such persons who do not consent for the award by the Collector as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act. We are of the view that the only course in such a situation is to hold that any claim as to what may be the procedure for determination of the amount of compensation other than the one contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, is impermissible. All findings, thus recorded by the learned single judge on the claim of the writ petitioner- respondents are without jurisdiction.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the Writ Petition is dismissed but without costs.