{"id":126008,"date":"1978-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978"},"modified":"2016-06-10T04:46:14","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T23:16:14","slug":"mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","title":{"rendered":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 404, \t\t 1979 SCR (2) 265<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAMMAD HASNUDDIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/11\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nSINGH, JASWANT\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  404\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 265\n 1979 SCC  (2) 572\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1982 SC  61\t (3)\n R\t    1986 SC1164\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Land Acquisition  Act, 1894,  Ss. 14  and\t18-Power  of\nCollector to  make a  reference under s. 18 circumscribed by\nfulfilment  of\t conditions  laid   down  therein-Duty\t and\njurisdiction of\t court to  go behind  the reference  made on\ntime barred application and decline to answer it.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant's\tland  was   acquired  by  the  State\nGovernment under s. 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act,\nA notification\tunder s.  3(1) was  published  on  the\t28th\nFebruary, l958\tand on\tthe 13th  of January,  1962 the Land\nAcquisition officer,  Aurangabad, made\tan  award  directing\npayment of  compensation inclusive  of 15%  solatium to\t the\nappellant at the rate of 37 n.p. per sq. yard as against his\nclaim for payment of compensation at the rate of RS.10\/- per\nsq. yard. the award was communicated to the appellant on the\n20th of January, 1962 and on the 5th February, 1962 he filed\nan  application\t for  review  before  the  Land\t Acquisition\nofficer who  made a recommendation  through the Collector to\nthe Secretary  to the  State Government\t that the  award  be\nreconsidered. But, the Collector by his order dated the 23rd\nof March,  1962 declined to forward the same. On the 14th of\nMay, 1962 the appellant applied for reference under s. 14(1)\nof the\tHyderabad Land\tAcquisition Act\t which\tis  in\tpari\nmateria with  s. 18  of\t the  Land  Acquisition\t Act,  1894,\npraying that  the period  spent in  the proceedings  for the\nreview be  excluded while computing the period of limitation\nprescribed under  s. 14 of the Limitation Act. The Assistant\nCollector, Aurangabad, who was the Land Acquisition officer,\nmade a\treference  to  the  District  Court  of\t Aurangabad,\n.without opining  Whether the application was time barred or\nnot. The  Government  raised  a\t preliminary  objection\t the\napplication   being   time   barred.   the   reference\t was\nincompetent. The  objection  prevailed,\t both  the  District\nCourt and the High Court.\n     The appellant  contended  that  while  dealing  with  a\nreference under\t s. 14(1)  of the  Hyderabad Act,  the court\ncannot go  into the  question that  the application was time\nbarred under  s. 18(2)\tof the and Acquisition Act, 1894 and\ntbereby refuse to entertain the reference.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD:  (1)\t The  power  of\t the  Collector\t to  make  a\nreference under\t s. 18\tis circumscribed  by the  conditions\nlaid down therein. These conditions are matters of substance\nand  their  observance\tis  a  condition  precedent  to\t the\nCollector's power  of reference.  The  fulfilment  of  these\nconditions, particularly  the one  regarding limitation\t are\nthe conditions,\t subject to which the power of the Collector\nto make\t the reference\texists. Therefore, the making of are\napplication for\t reference within  the\ttime  prescribed  by\nproviso to  s. 18(2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference\nby the Collector. [269G-H, Z71B, 278FGl\n     Abdul  Sattar   `Sahib  v.\t  Special   Dy.\t  Collector,\nVizagapatam Harbour  Acquisition,  ILR\t47  Mad.  357  (FB);\nBalKrishna Daji Gupta  v. The Collector,Bom\n18-817SCI 79\n266\nbay Suburban,  ILR 47  Bom.  699;  Jagarnath  Lall  v.\tLand\nAcquisition Dy.\t Collector Patna,  ILR Pat. 321; S. G. Sapre\nv. Collector  Saugar, ILR  1938 Nag. 149; Amar Nath Bhardwaj\nv. The Governor General in Council, ILR 1941 Lah. 100; Kashi\nParshad v.  Notified Area of Mahoba, ILR 54 All 282, Bhagwan\nDass Shall  v. First  Land Acquisition\tCollector, [1937] 41\nCWN 130I,  and Gopi  Nath Shah\tv.  first  Land\t Acquisition\nCollector, [1937] 41 CWN 212; approved.\n     Secy. Of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, ILR<\/a> 51 All. 96; State\nof U.P.\t v. Abdul Karim, AIR<\/a> 1963 All. 556; Panna Lal v. The\nCollector   of\t  Etah,\t  ILR\t [l959]\t   1\tAll.\t628;\nVenkateshwarasawami v. Sub-Collector, Bezwada, AIR 1943 Mad.\n327 and\t Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu, ILR [19S8] 1\nPunj. 844; over-ruled.\n     Krishna Das Roy v. Land Acquisition Collector Pabna, 16\nCWN 327; Upendra Nath Roy v. Province of Bengal, 45 CWN 792;\nLeath Elias  Joseph Solomon  v. H.  C. Stork,  38  CWN\t844;\ndisapproved.\n     Pramatha Nath  v. Secretary of State, ILR 57 Cal. 1148;\nEzra v. Secretary of State for India ILR 32 Cal. 60S and ILR\n30 Cal.\t 36;  Harish  Chandra  v.  Deputy  Land\t Acquisition\nofficer, [1962]\t 1 SCR 676; and The Administrator General of\nBengal v.  The\tLand  Acquisition  Collector,<\/a>  24  Parganas,\n[1907-8] 12 CWN 241; referred to.\n     2. Where the tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the\nstatute that  creates it  and that  statute also defines the\ncondition under which the tribunal can function, it is bound\nto see\tthat such  statutory conditions\t have been  complied\nwith. The  court functioning under the Act, being a tribunal\nof special  juris-diction, it  us its  duty to\tsee that the\nreference made\tto it  by the Collector under s. 18 complies\nwith the conditions laid down therein. [279B-C, D]\n     Even if  a reference  is wrongly  made by the Collector\nthe court will still have to determine its validity, because\nthe very  jurisdiction of  the court  to  hear\ta  reference\ndepends on  a proper reference being made under s. l8 and if\nthe reference is not proper, there is no jurisdiction in the\ncourt. to  hear the reference. The court has jurisdiction to\ndecide whether\tthe reference  was made\t beyond\t the  period\nprescribed by  the proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 18 of he Act,\nand if\tit finds  that it  was so  made, deoline  to  answer\nreference. [279EG]\n     The Queen\tv. Commissioner\t for Special Purposes of the\nIncome Tax,  LR [1888]\t21 QBD\t313; Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga\nPrasad,<\/a> [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 733 and Nusserwanfee Pestonjee v.\nMeer Mynoodeen Khan, LR [1855] 6 M.I.A. 134; applied.\n     Re. Land  Acquisition Act,\t ILR 30\t Bom.  275;  Sukhbir\nSingh v.  Secretary of\tState,\tILR  49\t All.  212;  Mahadeo\nKrishna v.  Mamlatdar of  Alibag, ILR  1944 Bom.  90; G.  J.\nDesai v.  Abdul Mazid  Kadri,  AIR  l951  Bom.\t156;  A.  R.\nBanerjee v.  Secy. of  State,  AIR  1937  Cal.\t680,  K.  N.\nNarayanappa Naidu  v. Revenue  Divisional officer  Sivakasi,\nAIR 195S  Mad. 20;  State of  Rajasthan v.  L. D. Silva, ILR\n[19S6] 6  Raj. 6S3;  Sheikh Mohommad  v.  Director  of\tAgri\nculture; M.P.,\t1966 MPLJ  433; Ramdeval  Singh v.  State of\nBihar AIR  1969 Pat.  131; Anthony D' Silva v. Kerala State,\nAIR l971  Ker. 51;  Swatantra L. & F. Pvt. Ltd., v. State of\nHaryana, ILR  [1974] 2\tPunj. 7S;  Swami Sukhanand  v. Samaj\nSudhar Samiti,\tAIR 1962  J &  K 59; and Abdul Sattar v. Mt.\nHamida Bibi Pak. L.R. l95O Lah. 568 (FB); approved.\n267\n     State of  Punjab v.  Cst. Qaisar  Jahan  Begam  &\tAnr.<\/a>\n[1964] SCR  971, and A State of U.P. v. Abdul Karim,<\/a> [CA No.\n2434\/1966 decided on . 3-9-1969] referred to.\n     Secretary of  State v.  Bhagwan Prasad, ILR<\/a> 52 All. 96;\nState of U.P. v. Abdul Karim, AIR<\/a> 1963 All. 556; Pannalal v.\nTrue  Collector\t  of  Etah,   ILR   11959]   1\t All.\t628;\nVenkateswaraswami v.  Sub-Collector, Bezwada,  AIR 1943 Mad.\n327; and Hari Krishna Khosla v. State of Pepsu, ILR [1958] 1\nPunj. 8S4; over-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.\t1926
\nof1969.\n<\/p>\n
     (From the\tJudgment and  Decree dated  S 2\t 68  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in First Appeal No. 4S1 of 1964).\n<\/p>\n
     Shaukat Hussain and Mohd. Mian for the appellant.
\n     R. H. Dhebar and M. N. Shroff for the respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SEN, J.  This appeal by certificate is directed against
\na judgment  of the  Bombay High\t Court, and  it involves  an
\nimportant question namely, whether a court in dealing with a
\nreference under\t s.14, Sub-s.  (1)  of\tthe  Hyderabad\tLand
\nAcquisition Act,  1309 Fasli, corresponding to s. 18, sub-s.
\n(1) of\tthe Land  Acquisition Act,  1894, can  go behind the
\nreference made\tby the Collector if the application on which
\nthe  reference\thas  been  made\t is  beyond  the  period  of
\nlimitation prescribed therein.\n<\/p>\n
     The material  facts giving\t rise to  this appeal are as
\nfollows: The  case arises  from that  part of  the erstwhile
\nprincely State\tof Hyderabad,  known  as  Marathwada,  which
\nmerged\tin   the  State\t of  Bombay  under  the\t States\t Re-
\norganisation Act,  l956. The land belonging to the appellant
\nadmeasuring 2057  sq. yards  in the  city of Aurangabad, has
\nbeen acquired  by the  State Government\t under\ts.5  of\t the
\nHyderabad Land\tAcquisition Act\t for the  construction of  a
\nbuilding  for\tthe  medical   college\tat  Aurangabad.\t The
\nGovernment published  a Notification  under s.\t3 (1) on the
\n28th of\t February, 1958.  On the  13th of  January, 1962 the
\nLand Acquisition officer, Aurangabad made an award directing
\npayment of Rs. 1,318.11 P. inclusive of 15 per cent solatium
\nas compensation\t to the\t appellant at the rate of 37 np. per
\nsq. yard,  as against  his claim for payment of compensation
\nat the\trate of\t Rs. 10\/-  per sq.  yard. The said award was
\ncommunicated to\t the appellant on the 20th of January, 1962.
\nThe appellant instead of making an application for reference
\nunder s. 14, sub-s. (1) of the Act, filed an application for
\nreview before  .he Land\t Acquisition officer  on the  5th of
\nFebruary, 1962\trequesting him ‘to revise the award’ stating
\nfurther that  in case  it was  not revised he would seek his
\nremedy in a court of law’. The Land Acquisition
\n268<\/span>
\nofficer obviously  felt that the amount fixed by him was too
\nlow and\t accordingly on\t the 17th  of February,\t 1962 made a
\nrecommendation, through\t the Collector,\t to the Secretary to
\nthe State  Government that  the award  be reconsidered. But,
\nthe Collector  by his  order dated  the 23rd  of March, 1962
\ndeclined to forward the same and informed the appellant that
\nhe must seek his remedy in! a court of law.\n<\/p>\n
     Eventually, on the 14th of May, 1962 the appellant made
\nan application\tfor reference under s. 14, sub-s. (1) of the
\nAct and\t prayed that the period spent in the proceedings for
\nthe review before the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to
\nthe date  of the  award be  excluded while  considering\t the
\nquestion of  limitation under s. 14 of the Limitation Act. A
\nreference was  made under  section 14, sub-s. (1) of the Act
\nto  the\t  District  Court   of\tAurangabad.   The  Assistant
\nCollector, Aurangabad, who was the Land Acquisition officer,
\nwhile making  a reference  made no expression of his opinion
\nwhether the  application was  time-barred or  not, evidently
\ntaking the  view that  the point  should  be  left  for\t the
\ndecision  of  the  court.  He,\thowever,  while\t making\t the
\nreference gave\ta complete  narration of  facts and left the
\nquestion open.\tA preliminary  objection was  raised by\t the
\nGovernment  that   the\treference   was\t  incompetent,\t the
\napplication being  time-barred. This objection prevailed and
\nthe contention\tof the\tappellant based\t on1 s.\t 14  of\t the
\nLimitation Act was negatived both by the Civil Judge, Senior
\nDivision Aurangabad  by his  order dated  the 28th  of June,
\n1962, and by the High Court of Bombay by its order dated the
\n5th of\tFebruary, 1968\tholding that  the time taken between
\nthe 5th\t of February, 1962 and the 23rd of March, 1962 could
\nnot be\texcluded while\tcomputing the  period of  limitation
\nprescribed under s. 14, sub-s. (1) of the Act inasmuch as s.
\n14  of\t the  Limitation  Act  was  not\t applicable  to\t the
\nproceedings, and  further,  that  even\tif  it\tapplied\t the
\nappellant was  not entitled  to the  benefit of s. 14 of the
\nLimitation Act,\t stating that  good faith,  which is  also a
\nnecessary ingredient under s. 14, was not established.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Civil Judge  raised an  issue whether\t the
\napplication for\t reference was barred by limitation under s.
\n14, sub-s. (1) of the Act, and he answered that issue in the
\naffirmative,  and  we  have  no\t doubt,\t whatever  that\t his
\ndecision on  that point,  as well  as that of the High Court
\naffirming it,  was right. The application was clearly out of
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  14,   Sub-s.  (1)\t  of  the   Hyderabad\tLand
\nAcquisition Act, 1309 Fasli provides that:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Every person\t interested, who  is displeased with
\n     the Taluqdar’s  award may,\t within two  months from the
\n     date of  receiving notice\tof the\taward, apply  to the
\n     Taluqdar in writing to refer
\n269<\/span>
\n     the case  to the  court for  determination, whether his
\n     objection be  to the measurement of the land, or to the
\n     amount of\tthe compensation,  or to the persons to whom
\n     it\t is   payable  or   to\tthe   apportionment  of\t the
\n     compensation among the persons interested.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 15,  sub-s. (1)  enjoins that  the Taluqdar  in
\nmaking the  reference shall forward to the Court a statement
\nin writing,  containing certain particulars. Sub-section (2)
\nthere of  provides that\t to  the  said\tstatement  shall  be
\nattached a  schedule giving  the particulars  of the notices
\nserved upon,  and of  the  statements  in  writing  made  or
\ndelivered by the parties interested respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  conceded for  our present  purposes that  s. 14,
\nsub-s. (1)  of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act is in pari
\nmateria with the provisions of s. 18 of the Land Acquisition
\nAct, 1894.  Hence hereinafter reference will be made only to
\nthe provisions\tcontained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
\n‘the Act’.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the appellant rested his submission
\non the .ground that the court while dealing with a reference
\nunder s.  14, sub-s.  (1) of  the Act,\tcannot go behind the
\nreference and  decline to  answer it.  The  point  regarding
\napplicability of s. 14 of the Limitation Act was rightly not
\npressed before us. Nor was any contention raised by him that
\nthe application\t for review made by the appellant before the
\nLand Acquisition  officer on  the  9th\tof  February,  1962,
\nasking him  to revise  the award should, in law, be regarded
\nas an application under s. 14, sub-s. (1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion that falls for determination in the
\nappeal is  whether the court can go into a question that the
\napplication for\t reference was\tnot made  to  the  Collector
\nwithin the  time prescribed in s. 18, sub-s. (2) of the Land
\nAcquisition Act;  and if  so, can it refuse to entertain the
\nreference if  it finds it to be barred by time. There was at
\none time  a great  divergence of  judicial  opinion  on\t the
\nquestion. But  almost all  the High  Courts have  now veered
\nround to  the view  that the  court has the power to go into
\nthe question  of limitation.  It not  only has the power but
\nalso  the  duty\t to  examine  whether  the  application\t for
\nreference was  in accordance  with law\ti.e., whether it was
\nmade within  time prescribed under the proviso to sub-s. (2)
\nof s. 18 of the Act or not. The view taken by them is that a
\nCollector’s jurisdiction  is circumscribed by the conditions
\nlaid down in s. 18, sub-s. (1), that if he makes a reference
\neven though the application for reference was not in accord
\n270<\/span>
\nance with  the provisions  of s.  18, the  court acquires no
\njurisdiction to hear the reference and that it can refuse to
\nhear it if it was made on a time-barred application.\n<\/p>\n
     The matter\t came up twice before this Court in State of
\nPunjab v. Mst. Qaiser Jehan Begum & Anr.<\/a>(1) and the State of
\nU.P. v.\t Abdul Karim<\/a>(2)\t in which  the conflict\t of judicial
\nopinion in  the High  Courts was noticed but not resolved as
\nthe Court  in both  the case,s\trested\tits  decision  on  a
\nnarrower ground\t namely that the application for a reference
\nwas not\t barred by  time. In  Mst. Qaiser Jehan Begum’s case
\n(supra) it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In the  view which  We have taken on the question
\n     of limitation,  it is  unnecessary for us to decide the
\n     other question  as to  whether the\t civil court,  on  a
\n     reference under  s. 18  of the  Act, can  go  into\t the
\n     question of  limitation. We  have al-ready\t stated that
\n     there  is\ta  conflict  of\t judicial  opinion  on\tthat
\n     question. There  is no  one side  a line  of  decisions
\n     following the  decision of the Bombay High Court in re.
\n     Land Acquisition  Act, which  have held  that the civil
\n     court is  not debarred  from satisfying itself that the
\n     reference which  it is  called upon  to hear is a valid
\n     reference. There  is, on  the other  side,\t a  line  of
\n     decisions which  say that the jurisdiction of the civil
\n     court is  confined to  considering and pronouncing upon
\n     any one  of the  four different  objections to an award
\n     under the Act which may have been raised in the written
\n     application for  the reference.  The  decision  of\t the
\n     Allahabad High  Court in  Secretary of State v. Bhagwan
\n     Prasad<\/a> is\ttypical of  this line of decisions. There is
\n     thus a  marked conflict  of  judicial  opinion  on\t the
\n     question ‘This  conflict, we think, must be resolved in
\n     a more  appropriate case  on a future occasion”. In the
\n     case before  us the  question doe6 not really arise and
\n     is merely\tacademic and  we prefer\t not to\t decide\t the
\n     question in the present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That question now directly arises.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  contended on  behalf of  the  appellant  that  a
\nreference to  the Court\t having been  made by the Collector,
\nthe court  had no  jurisdiction to  question the validity of
\nthat reference and was bound to decide the matter on merits.
\nIn support  of this contention certain authorities have been
\ncited to  us, in  which it has been laid down that it is for
\nthe  Collector,\t and  the  Collec-tor  alone,  to  determine
\nwhether to  make a reference under s. 18, sub-s. (1), and if
\nhe decides to make a reference, it is not
\n     (1) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 971.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) Civi] Appeal No. 2434 of 1966 decided on 23-9-1969.\n<\/p>\n
271<\/span><\/p>\n
open  to  the  court  to  go  behind  the  decision  of\t the
\nCollector, and\thold  the  reference  to  be  out  of  time.
\nIllustrative of\t this line of decisions is that of Allahabad
\nHigh Court  in Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad<\/a>(1). That
\nview has  been reiterated by the Full Bench of the same High
\nCourt in  the State  of U.P.  v. Abdul\tKarim<\/a>(2) and  in its
\nearlier decision  in Panna  Lal v. The Collector of Etah(3),
\nand the\t decisions in  Venkateswaraswami  v.  Sub-Collector,
\nBezwada(4), Hari Kishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu(5).\n<\/p>\n
     Chandravarkar J.  in re  Land Acquisition\tAct(6)\theld
\nthat it\t is clear  from section\t 18 that the formalities are
\nmatters of  substance and  their observance  is a  condition
\nprecedent to be Collector’s power of reference. He held that
\nthe court  is bound  to go  into the  question\twhether\t the
\nreference under s. 18 was within time. He also held that the
\ncourt was  not only  entitled, but  bound, to satisfy itself
\nthat the  conditions laid  down in  s. 18 have been complied
\nwith. In stating the principle, Chandravarkar J. Observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “These are  the conditions  prescribed by  the Act
\n     for the  right of\tthe party  to  a  reference  by\t the
\n     Collector\tto   come  into\t  existence.  They  are\t the
\n     conditions to  which the power of the Collector to make
\n     the reference  is subject. They are also the conditions
\n     which must\t be fulfilled  before  the  court  can\thave
\n     jurisdiction to entertain the reference.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The principle  laid down  by him in that case was acted upon
\nin Sukhbir  Singh v. Secretary of State(7). In that case the
\nCollector had  made  a\treference,  although  there  was  no
\napplication before him as required by s. 18 and the Division
\nBench held  that being so, there was no valid reference. But
\nin a latter case which came before another Division Bench in
\nSecretary of  State v.\tBhagwan Prasad<\/a>\t(supra), it was held
\nthat it\t was not  open to the court under s. 18 to go behind
\nthe reference,\tthat it\t was for  the  Collector  to  decide
\nwhether\t the   conditions  justifying  reference  have\tbeen
\ncomplied with  and if  he thought  that they  had been,\t the
\ncourt was  bound to  answer the\t reference. This  view found
\nfavour with  a Single  Judge of\t the Madras  High  Court  in
\nVenkateswaraswami v.  Sub-Collector Bezwada  (supra)  and  a
\nSingle Judge of the Punjab High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla
\nv. State  of Pepsu  (supra). All  these decisions clearly do
\nnot lay down good law.\n<\/p>\n
(1) ILR 52 All. 96.\n<\/p>\n
(2) AIR. 1963 All. 556.\n<\/p>\n
(3) ILR [1959] 1 All. 628.\n<\/p>\n
(4) AIR 1943 Mad. 327.\n<\/p>\n
(5) ILR [1958] 1 Punj. 854.\n<\/p>\n
(6) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 275, 285, 286
\n(7) ILR 49 All. 212.\n<\/p>\n
272<\/span><\/p>\n
     In State  of U.P. v. Abdul Karim<\/a> (supra) the Full Bench
\nof the\tAllahabad High\tCourt, on  its view of the scheme of
\nthe Act, declined to follow the decision of Chandavarkar, J.
\nin re  Land Acquisition\t Act (supra)  and the  long line  of
\ndecisions taking  the same  view. It  preferred to  rest its
\ndecision on  the earlier view of its Full Bench in Panna Lal
\nv. The\tCollector of  Etah (supra)  and that in Secretary of
\nState v.  Bhagwan<\/a> prasad  (supra). In  the  light  of  these
\ndecisions, it held that the Collector’s jurisdiction to make
\na reference is not circumscribed by the conditions laid down
\nin s.  18, sub-s.  (1) and (2), that if he makes a reference
\neven  though  the  application\tfor  reference\twas  not  in
\naccordance with\t the provisions of s. 18, the court acquires
\njurisdiction to\t hear the  reference,  and  that  it  cannot
\nrefuse to  hear it  even if  it was  made or.  a time-barred
\napplication. Upon  its view,  it held  that the court has no
\npower to  determine or\tconsider a question of limitation as
\nits jurisdiction  is strictly  limited by  the terms  of the
\nsection as  laid down  by the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath
\nv.  Secretary\tof  State(1).\tIt  further  held  that\t the
\nlegislature having contemplated the Collector to be an agent
\nof the\tGovernment, as\tthat is the position assigned to him
\nby the\tPrivy council  in Ezra\tv. Secretary  of  State\t for
\nIndia(2), his  status is  certainly not\t changed by the mere
\nfact that  he is required to make a reference under s. 18 if
\nthe application\t is within prescribed time and complies with
\ncertain conditions.  That being\t so, even  if the  Collector
\nwrongly decides\t that  an  application\tis  within  time  or
\nsatisfies other conditions, the Government as its principal,
\nmay have  a remedy  against him\t but was bound by his act so
\nlong as\t it remains. The act being of the agent is their own
\nand they  are bound by it. The Government cannot, therefore,
\nbe permitted  to contend  at the  hearing of  the  reference
\nbefore the  court that it was illegally made. In view of all
\nthis, the Full Bench was of the view that this class of case
\ndoes  not   fall  within   the\tclass  of  cases  where\t the
\njurisdiction of\t an  inferior  authority  depends  upon\t the
\nexistence of  a certain state of facts, as indicated by Lord
\nEshar, M.  R. in  The Queen  v.\t Commissioners\tfor  Special
\nPurposes of the Income-tax(1).\n<\/p>\n
     On principle,  apart from authority, it is difficult to
\naccept the  line of  reasoning of  the Allahabad High Court,
\nnamely, whatever  might be  the defects and imperfections in
\nthe reference  made, once  it is before the court, the court
\nis debarred  from enquiring  into its validity or otherwise.
\nThe decision  in Abdul\tKarim’s case  (supra) proceeds\ton a
\ncom-\n<\/p>\n
(1) ILR 57 Cal. 1148.\n<\/p>\n
(2) ILR 32 Cal. 605.\n<\/p>\n
(3) L.R. (1888) 21 QBD 313.\n<\/p>\n
273<\/span><\/p>\n
plete misunderstanding\tof the decision of the Privy Council
\nin Pramatha   Nath  v. Secretary of State (supra), where the
\nJudicial Committee interpreting s. 21 observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Their  Lordships   have   no\t  doubt\t  that\t the
\n     jurisdiction of  the Courts under this Act is a special
\n     one and  is strictly  limited by  the  terms  of  these
\n     sections. It  only arises when a specific objection has
\n     been taken to the Collector’s award, and it is confined
\n     to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it
\n     is ascertained that the only objection taken, is to the
\n     amount of\tcompensation, that  alone  is  the  “matter”
\n     referred, and  the Court  has no  power to determine or
\n     consider anything beyond it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
All that the Privy Council intended to lay down was that the
\njurisdiction of\t the court in dealing with a reference under
\ns. 18 is restricted by the terms of the section, as enjoined
\nby s.  21. That\t decision cannot be interpreted to mean that
\nthe court  while, hearing  a reference\tunder s.  18  cannot
\nenquire into  competency or  otherwise of the reference made
\nby the\tCollector, i.e., whether the conditions precedent to
\nthe exercise  of power\tby the Collector, and, therefore, of
\nthe  court,   and  in  particular  the\tcondition  regarding
\nlimitation, are fulfilled or not.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ezra  v. Secretary  of State  for India\t (supra) the
\nPrivy Council,\twhile dealing  with  the  functions  of\t the
\nCollector in  making an award under s. 11 laid down that the
\nfunctions  of\tthe   Collector\t  are\tnot   judicial\t but
\nadministrative and  all that  he does is to make an offer to
\nthe claimants  with regard to the, valuation of the property
\nto be  acquired. In  that  context,  it\t did  not  think  it
\nnecessary to  repeat the  reasoning of\tthe  judgment  under
\nappeal where  the sections and the questions as a whole were
\nvery satisfactorily stated, and observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The proceedings of the Collector resulting in the
\n     ‘award’ are  administrative and not judicial. The award
\n     in which  the enquiry  results  is\t merely\t a  decision
\n     (binding only  on the collector) as to what sum I shall
\n     be tendered to the owner of the lands and if a judicial
\n     ascertainment is decided by the owner, he can obtain it
\n     by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector
\n     to the Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These observations,  however, related  to proceedings  under
\nPart II of the Act and not under Part III.\n<\/p>\n
     Ameer Ali\tand Stephen  JJ., in delivering the judgment
\nunder appeal, explained the functions of the Collector under
\ns. 11  in Ezra v. Secretary of State for India(1) where they
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
(1) ILR 30 Cal. 36.\n<\/p>\n
274<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “throughout the  proceedings the Collector acts as
\n     the  agents   of  Government   for\t the   purposes\t  of
\n     acquisition….He is in a sense of the term, a judicial
\n     officer, nor  is the  proceeding before  him a judicial
\n     proceeding…. he\tis not\ta Court….  The  Government
\n     …. at  whose instance  the land\tis being taken up is
\n     not entitled to demand a reference.. The reason of this
\n     is plain.\tThe Collector  acts  as\t the  agent  of\t the
\n     Government…. and\t they\tare accordingly bound by the
\n     award of their agent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      …… the Collector acts in the matter of the enquiry
\n     and the  valuation of  the land only as an agent of the
\n     Government\t and   not  as\t a  judicial   officer;\t and
\n     ….consequently, although the Government …. is bound
\n     by his  proceedings, the  persons\tinterested  are\t not
\n     concluded by  his finding\tregarding the  value of\t the
\n     land or the compensation to be awarded.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the  basis of  the Privy  Council decision in Ezra’s
\ncase (supra),  this Court  in Harish  Chandra v. Deputy Land
\nAcquisition officer(1)\theld that the Collector in making an
\naward acts as an agent of the Government, and that the legal
\ncharacter of  the award\t made by the Collector was that of a
\ntender or offer by him on behalf of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Allahabad  High  Court  has  read  more  into\t the
\ndecision of the Privy Council in Ezra’s case (supra) than is
\nthere. Merely  because the  Collector while  making an award
\nunder s.  11 or in serving a notice of the owner of the land
\nunder s. 12, acts as an agent of the Government, it does not
\nnecessarily imply that while making a reference to the court
\nunder s.  18, he  acts in  the capacity\t of an\tagent of the
\nGovernment. While  it is  true that  the Collector in making
\nthe award under s. 11 acts as an agent of the Government, he
\nin making  a reference\tto the\tcourt under  s. 18 acts as a
\nstatutory authority.  Section 18,  sub-s.  (1)\tof  the\t Act
\nentrusts to  the Collector  the statutory  duty of  making a
\nreference on  the fulfilment  of the  conditions  laid\tdown
\ntherein. The  Collector, therefore,  acting under  s. 18, is
\nnothing but  a statutory authority exercising his own powers
\nunder the section.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  context, we  may advert to the controversy that
\nhad arisen  as a  result of  the Privy Council’s decision in
\nEzra’s\tcase  (supra)  holding.\t that  the  Legislature\t had
\nassigned to the Collector the position of an:
\n(1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 676.\n<\/p>\n
275<\/span><\/p>\n
agent of  the Government  while making an award under s. 11.
\nThe problem that arose was that the claimants were left with
\nno remedy  where the Collector improperly declines to make a
\nreference   although\tthe   application    fulfilled\t the
\nrequirements of\t s. 18.\t In  The  Administrator\t General  of
\nBengal v. The Land Acquisition Collector,<\/a> 24-Parganas(1) the
\nCalcutta High Court while dealing with the question tried to
\ndraw a\tdistinction between  the functions  of the Collector
\nunder Part  Il of  the Act  land that  under Part  III,\t and
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  admitted that up to and including the time
\n     of making\this award  the Collector  was in  no sense a
\n     judicial officer  and that\t the proceedings  before him
\n     were not  judicial\t proceedings(Ezra  v.  Secretary  of
\n     State) and\t however irregular  his proceedings were, we
\n     cannot interfere with his award made under s. 11 of the
\n     Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  But when  an application  is made to the Collector
\n     requiring him  to refer  the matter to the Civil Court,
\n     the Collector  may have  to determine  and, it seems to
\n     us, determine  judicially whether the person making the
\n     application was  represented or  not when the award was
\n     made, or  whether a  notice had  been served  upon\t the
\n     applicant\tunder\tsec.  12(2)   and  what\t  period  of
\n     limitation applies and whether the application is under
\n     the circumstances\tmade within  time.  The\t Collector’s
\n     functions\tunder  Part  III  of  the  Act\tare  clearly
\n     distinguishable from  those under\tPart II. Part III of
\n     the. Act  relates\tto  proceedings\t in  Court.  In\t our
\n     opinion the  Collector in rejecting the application was
\n     a Court  and acting judicially and his order is subject
\n     to revision  by this  Court. To hold otherwise would be
\n     to give  finality to  an award  under sec.\t 11 even  in
\n     cases in  which  the  Collector  acts  irregularly\t and
\n     contrary  to  law\tand  then  refuses  on\tinsufficient
\n     grounds to\t make a reference under Part III of the Act.
\n     The party aggrieved may be left without remedy which is
\n     implied by a judicial trial before the Judge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These observations were no doubt made in a different context
\nbut they bear some relevance to the point at issue.\n<\/p>\n
     The question at issue was whether the Collector’s order
\nrefusing to make a reference could be interfered with by the
\nHigh Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or s.
\n107 of\tthe Government of India Act, 1919. The Calcutta High
\nCourt’s view that the Collector’s power was a judicial power
\nand that  the Collector\t was a Court subordinate to the High
\nCourt was obviously wrong but it persisted in taking
\n(1) (1907-8) 12 CWN 241
\n276<\/span>
\nthat view  to obviate  injustice: Krishna  Das Roy  v.\tLand
\nAcquisition  Collector,\t  Pabna;(1)  Upendra   Nath  Roy  v.
\nProvince of  Bengal,(2) Leeth  Elias Joseph Solomon v. H. C.
\nStork(3). The  Calcutta High  Court tried  to  exercise\t its
\nsupervisory jurisdiction  to  provide  the  subject  with  a
\nremedy. The power of the Collector to make an order under s.
\n18 was not judicial in nature, nor was the Collector a court
\nsubordinate  to\t the  High  Court.  The\t other\tHigh  Court,
\ntherefore, expressly dissented from the view of the Calcutta
\nHigh Court:  Abdul Sattar Sahib v. Special Deputy Collector,
\nVizagapatnam Harbour  Acquisition, (4) Balkrishna Daji Gupta
\nv. The Collector, Bombay Suburban,(5) Jagarnath Lall v. Land
\nAcquisition Deputy  Collector,\tPatna,(6)  S.  G.  Sapra  v.
\nCollector, Saugar;(7)  Amar Nath  Bhardwaj v.  The  Governor
\nGeneral in  Council,(8) Kashi  Pershad v.  Notified Area  of
\nMahoba.(9). Even  the Calcutta\tHigh Court later changed its
\nview:  Bhagwan\t Das  Shah   v.\t  First\t  Land\t Acquisition
\nCollector,<\/a>(10) Gopi  Nath Shah\tv.  First  Land\t Acquisition
\nCollector.(11)\tIt  was\t held  that  the  functions  of\t the
\nCollector under\t s. 18\twere statutory\tor quasi-judicial in
\nnature.\n<\/p>\n
     The construction  placed by the Allahabad High Court on
\ns. 18  of the  Act is  not borne  out either  by  the  plain
\nlanguage of  the section  itself or  by accepted principles.
\nThe following  observations appear  in\tAbdul  Karim’s\tcase
\n(supra):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There is  no support for the proposition that the
\n     necessary sine qua non of a reference is an application
\n     for Reference made in accordance with the provisions of
\n     section 18.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “There is no provision. which bars the Collector’s
\n     power to  make a  reference, if  he is inclined to make
\n     one on a time barred application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “If the  Collector decides to make a reference the
\n     Land Acquisition Court cannot go behind the reference.”
\n\t  “A   Collector   and\t a   Collector\t alone\t has
\n     jurisdiction to make a reference and a reference by him
\n     is not  a nullity merely because it is based on a time-
\n     barred application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) 16 CWN 327.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 45 C.W.N. 792.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 38 C.W.N. 844.\n<\/p>\n
(4) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 357 (F.B.)
\n(5) ILR 47 Bom. 699.\n<\/p>\n
(6) I.L.R. Pat. 321.\n<\/p>\n
(7) ILR (1938) Nag. 149.\n<\/p>\n
(8) ILR (1941) Lah. 100
\n(9) ILR 54 All. 282.\n<\/p>\n
(10) (1937) 41 C.W.N. 1301.\n<\/p>\n
(11) (1937) 41 C.W.N. 212
\n277<\/span>
\n\t  “The facts  regarding limitation of an application
\n     for reference  are not  required to  be stated  by\t the
\n     Collector in  his reference, and indeed he is not bound
\n     to send  the application  along with the reference. All
\n     that the Court has to do on receipt of the reference or
\n     can do  is to  hear it after giving notice of the date.
\n     The word  ‘thereupon’ in Section 19 must be interpreted
\n     to mean “as soon as the collector makes a reference and
\n     states for the information of the Court various matters
\n     set out in Section 19.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A District  Judge gets  jurisdiction not from the
\n     Collector but from the receipt of a reference from him.
\n     It\t is  the  receipt  of  the  reference  that  confers
\n     jurisdiction upon\thim  and  not  any  finding  of\t the
\n     Collector.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Court  has to  perform a\t ministerial act  of
\n     causing a\tnotice to he given to the objector. There is
\n     no provision  entitling  it  to  examine  the  question
\n     whether  the  Collector’s\torder  was  correct  on\t the
\n     question of the application having been made within the
\n     prescribed time.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  The jurisdiction  of the  Court under the Act is a
\n     special one  and  strictly\t limited  by  the  terms  of
\n     section 18\t to 21.\t It  only  arises  when\t a  specific
\n     objection has  been taken to the Collector’s award, and
\n     it is  confined to a consideration of that objection. A
\n     Court undoubtedly\thas certain  jurisdiction  over\t the
\n     reference,\t but  it  does\tnot  include  any  appellate
\n     jurisdiction over\tthe  Collector\tin  respect  of\t the
\n     reference made by him without statutory sanction.”
\nIt is difficult to subscribe to these propositions which are
\nnot warranted by law.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t his   celebrated   judgment   in   The\t  Queen\t  v.
\nCommissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (supra)
\nLord Esher,  M.R., while  dealing with\tstatutory Tribunals,
\ndivided them into two categories, namely:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i) “When  an inferior  court or  tribunal or body
\n     which has\tto exercise  the power of deciding facts, is
\n     first   established   by\tAct   of   Parliament,\t the
\n     Legislatures has  to consider  what powers it will give
\n     that tribunals or body. It may in effect say that, if a
\n     certain state  of facts  exists and  is shown  to\tsuch
\n     tribunal or  body before  it  proceeds  to\t do  certain
\n     things, it\t shall have  jurisdiction to do such things,
\n     but  not\totherwise.  There   it\tis   not  for\tthem
\n     conclusively to decide
\n278<\/span>
\n     whether  that  state  of  facts  exists,  and  if\tthey
\n     exercise the  jurisdiction without\t its existence, what
\n     they do  may be  questioned, and  it will\tbe held that
\n     they have acted without jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) The  legislature may  intrust the tribunal or
\n     body  with\t  a   jurisdiction,   which   includes\t the
\n     jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state
\n     of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding
\n     that it  does exist, to proceed further or do something
\n     more. When\t the legislature  are  establishing  such  a
\n     tribunal or  body with  limited jurisdiction, they also
\n     have to consider, whatever jurisdiction they give them,
\n     whether there  shall be any appeal from their decision,
\n     for other wise there will be none.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The law  as enunciated  by Lord Eshar has been accepted
\nby this\t Court as  laying down the true principle in Jagdish
\nPrasad v. Ganga Prasad<\/a> (1)
\n     The word  “require” in  s. 18  of the  Act implies.  It
\ncarries with  it the idea that the written application makes
\nit incumbent  on the  Collector to  make  a  reference.\t The
\nCollector is required to make a reference under s. 18 on the
\nfulfilment of  certain conditions.  The first  condition  is
\nthat there  shall be  a\t written  application  by  a  person
\ninterested who\thas  not  accepted  the\t award.\t The  second
\ncondition is  as to the nature of the objection is which may
\nbe taken,  and the  third condition is as to the time within
\nwhich the  application shall  be  made.\t The  power  of\t the
\nCollector  to\tmake  a\t  reference  under  s.\t18  is\tthus
\ncircumscribed by  the conditions  laid down therein, and one
\ncondition is  the condition regarding limitation to be found
\nin the proviso.\n<\/p>\n
     The conditions  laid down\tin s.  18  are\t‘matters  of
\nsubstance and  their observance\t is a condition precedent to
\nthe Collector’s\t power of reference’, as rightly observed by
\nChandavarkar J.\t in re\tLand Acquisition Act (supra). We are
\ninclined to  the view that the fulfilment of the conditions,
\nparticularly  the   one\t regarding   limitation,   are\t the
\nconditions subject  to which  the power\t of the Collector to
\nmake the  reference exists. It must accordingly be held that
\nthe making  of an  application for reference within the time
\nprescribed by proviso to s. 18. Sub-s. (2) is a sine qua non
\nfor a valid reference by the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
     From these\t considerations, it  follows that  the court
\nfunctioning under  the\tAct  being  a  tribunal\t of  special
\njurisdiction, it  is its duty to see that the reference made
\nto it  by the  Collector  under\t s.  18\t complies  with\t the
\nconditions laid\t down  therein\tso  as\tto  give  the  court
\njurisdiction
\n(1) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 733.\n<\/p>\n
279<\/span><\/p>\n
to hear the reference. In view of these principles, we would
\nbe extremely  reluctant to  accept the statement of law laid
\ndown by\t the Allahabad\tHigh Court  in\tAbdul  Karim’s\tcase
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
     Every tribunal  of limited\t jurisdiction  is  not\tonly
\nentitled but  bound to determine whether the matter in which
\nit is  asked to\t exercise its  jurisdiction comes within the
\nlimits\tof   its  special   jurisdiction  and\twhether\t the
\njurisdiction of\t such tribunal is dependent on the existence
\nof certain  facts or  circumstances. Its  obvious duty is to
\nsee that  these facts  and circumstances  exist to invest it
\nwith  jurisdiction,   and  where   a  tribunal\tderives\t its
\njurisdiction from  the statute\tthat  creates  it  and\tthat
\nstatute also defines the conditions under which the tribunal
\ncan function,  it  goes\t without  saying  that\tbefore\tthat
\ntribunal assumes  jurisdiction\tin  a  matter,\tit  must  be
\nsatisfied that\tthe conditions\trequisite for  its acquiring
\nseisin of  that matter\thave in\t fact arisen. As observed by
\nthe  Privy   Council  in   Nusserwanjee\t Pestonjee  v.\tMeer
\nMynoodeen Khan,(1) wherever jurisdiction is given to a court
\nby an  Act of Parliament and such jurisdiction is only given
\nupon certain  specified terms  contained in that Act it is a
\nuniversal principle  that these terms must be complied with,
\nin order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be
\nnot complied with the jurisdiction does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     If an application is made which is not within time, the
\nCollector will\tnot have  the power  to make a reference. In
\norder to  determine the limits of his own power, it is clear
\nthat  the   Collector  will   have  to\tdecide\twhether\t the
\napplication presented  by the  claimant is  or is not within
\ntime, and  satisfies the conditions laid down in s. 18. Even
\nif a  reference is  wrongly made  by the Collector the court
\nwill still  have to  determine the validity of the reference
\nbecause the  very  jurisdiction\t of  the  court\t to  hear  a
\nreference depends  on a proper reference being made under s.
\n18, and\t if  the  reference  is\t not  proper,  there  is  no
\njurisdiction in\t the court to hear the reference. It follows
\nthat it\t is the\t duty of the court to see that the statutory
\nconditions laid\t down in  s. 18 have been complied with, and
\nit is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference
\nwhich it is called upon to hear is a valid reference It is `
\nonly a\tvalid reference\t which\tgives  jurisdiction  to\t the
\ncourt, and,  therefore, the  court has\tto  ask\t itself\t the
\nquestion  whether  it  has  jurisdiction  to  entertain\t the
\nreference.\n<\/p>\n
     In deciding  the question\tof jurisdiction in a case of
\nreference under\t s. 18\tby the\tCollector to  the court, the
\ncourt is  certainly not\t acting as  a court of appeal; it is
\nonly discharging  the elementary  duty of  satisfying itself
\nthat a\treference which\t it is\tcalled upon  to decide\tis a
\nvalid and
\n(1) LR (1855) 6 M.I.A. 134.\n<\/p>\n
280<\/span><\/p>\n
proper reference  according to\tthe provisions\tof  the\t Act
\nunder which it is made. That is a basic and preliminary duty
\nwhich  no  tribunal  can  possibly  avoid.  The\t court\thas,
\ntherefore, jurisdiction\t to decide whether the reference was
\nmade beyond  the period prescribed by the, proviso to sub-s.
\n(2) of\ts. 18  of the  Act, and\t if it\tfinds that it was so
\nmade, decline to answer reference
\n     Beaumont C. J., delivering the judgment of the Division
\nBench in  Mahadeo Krishna  v. Mamlatdar of Alibag,(1) agreed
\nwith the view of Chandavarkar J. and observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It seems to me that the Court is bound to satisfy
\n     itself  that   the\t reference  made  by  the  Collector
\n     complies with  the specified  conditions, so as to give
\n     the Court jurisdiction to hear the reference. It is not
\n     a question\t of the\t Court sitting in appeal or revision
\n     on the  decision of  the Collector; it is a question of
\n     the Court\tsatisfying itself  that the  reference\tmade
\n     under the\tAct is\tone which it is required to hear. If
\n     the reference  does not  comply with  the terms  of the
\n     Act, then\tthe Court cannot entertain it. I have myself
\n     some difficulty  in seeing\t on what principle the Court
\n     is to  be\tdebarred  from\tsatisfying  itself  mat\t the
\n     reference, which  it is called upon to hear, is a valid
\n     reference. I  am in  entire  agreement  with  the\tview
\n     expressed by Chandavarkar J. that it is the duty of the
\n     Court to  see that\t the statutory\tconditions have been
\n     complied with.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The same  view has\t been reiterated  by almost  all the
\nHigh Courts  except the Allahabad High Court :G. J. Desai v.
\nAbdul  Mazid   Kadri(2)\t A.  R.\t Banerjee  v.  Secretary  of
\nState,(3) K.  N. Narayanappa  Naidu  v.\t Revenue  Divisional
\nOfficer, Sivakasi;(4)  State of\t Rajasthan v. L. D’Silva,(5)
\nSheikh\tMohommad   v.  Director\t  of   Agriculture,   Madhya
\nPradesh;(6) Ramdeval  Singh v.\tState of  Bihar,(7)  Anthony
\nD’Silva v.  Kerala State;(8)  Swatantra L. & F. Pct. Ltd. v.
\nState of  Haryana,(9) and  Swami Sukhanand  v. Samaj  Sudhar
\nSamiti.(10) This is also the
\n(1) TLR (1944) Bom. 90.\n<\/p>\n
(2) AIR’ 1951 Bom 156.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A.I.R. 1937 Cal. 680.\n<\/p>\n
(4) A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 20.\n<\/p>\n
(5) I.L.R. (1956) 6 Raj. 653.\n<\/p>\n
(6) 1966 MPLJ 433.\n<\/p>\n
(7) A.I.R. 1969 Pat. 131.\n<\/p>\n
(8) A.I.R. 1971 Ker. 51.\n<\/p>\n
(9) I.L.R. (1974) 2 Punj. 75.\n<\/p>\n
(10) A.I.R. 1962 J. & K. 59
\n281<\/span>
\nview expressed\tby a  Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in
\nAbdul Sattar v. Mt. Hamida Bibi.(1)
\n     The view  to a  contrary effect  taken by the Allahabad
\nHigh court  in Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad<\/a> (supra),
\nPanna Lal v. The Collector of Etah (supra) and State of U.P.
\nv. Abdul  Karim<\/a> (supra)\t and by a Single Judge of the Madras
\nHigh Court  in Venkateswaraswami  v. Sub- Collector, Bezwada
\n(supra) and  by a  Single Judge\t of the Punjab High Court in
\nHari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu (supra) clearly do not
\nlay down  good law and these decisions are” therefore, over-
\nruled.\n<\/p>\n
     It is impossible not to feel sorry for the appellant in
\nthis case,  who was guilty of almost incredible folly by not
\nfiling an  application for reference under s. 14, sub-s. (1)
\nof the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, 1309 Fasli within the
\ntime prescribed therein, and is thus precluded from claiming
\nwhat may  be legitimately due to him by way of compensation.
\nBut, the  decision must\t depend upon the construction of the
\nsection and  the law must take its course. We trust that, as
\nassured by  its counsel, the State Government of Maharashtra
\nwill be\t generous enough  to consider whether it should make
\nan ex gratia payment to the appellant of a sufficient amount
\nby way\tof compensation\t which will be Commensurate with the
\nmarket value  of  the  land  acquired  as  on  the  28th  of
\nFebruary, 1958.\t It certainly  was a  piece of\tland of some
\nvalue as it was situate in the city of Aurangabad.\n<\/p>\n
     The result, therefore, is that the appeal must fail and
\nis dismissed.  There shall  be no  order as to costs of this
\nappeal and of the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
M. R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n     (1) Pak L.R. 1950 Lah. 560 (F.B)\n19-817SCI\/78\n282<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 404, 1979 SCR (2) 265 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD HASNUDDIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/11\/1978 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) SINGH, JASWANT PATHAK, R.S. CITATION: 1979 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\"},\"wordCount\":6177,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\",\"name\":\"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978","datePublished":"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978"},"wordCount":6177,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978","name":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T23:16:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-hasnuddin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-november-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}