- (1.) THE sole question, which arises for consideration in this revision application, is : Whether, to an application made to the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a reference to the Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply? The answer to this question depends on whether the Collector, while making, or refusing to make, a reference under section 18 (1) of the Act, acts as a Court, and not as a mere Statutory Authority. Having regard to the weight of authorities on this question, it cannot be disputed that the Collector, acting under section 18 of the Act, is not a Court, but the question arises for consideration in view of an amendment of section 18 of the Act by Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 1964, whereby sub-section (3) of section 18 has been added. The moot question, therefore, is as to whether the provision of sub-section (3) makes any difference.
(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly noticed : (a) As per the Development Plan, the land belonging to the petitioner was reserved for development of 80 feet wide road. The Ichalkaranji Municipal Council decided to acquire the said land for widening of the road, and ultimately issued Notification on 20th July, 1990 under section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with section 6 of the Act, whereby the said land was declared to be acquired. The notification was published in the Official Gazette and newspapers on 30th August, 1990 and 1st September, 1990. The Award was published by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31st January, 1991, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur, by his notice dated 13th March, 1991, called upon the petitioner to receive compensation. The petitioner received the notice on 18th March, 1991, but accepted the compensation under protest. He, thereafter, applied for a certified copy of the Award on 2nd April, 1991, which he received on 19th September, 1991. It appears that, thereafter, on 5th October, 1991, he filed an application under section 18 (1) of the Act, requiring the Collector to refer the matter to a Court for determination of the compensation amount payable to the petitioner. By his communication and order dated 5th October, 1991, the Land Acquisition Officer informed the petitioner that such a reference could not be made, since his application was barred by limitation. Later on the 19th August, 1992, the papers submitted by the petitioner, along with Court-fees, etc. , were returned to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the instant revision application in which his contention is that the time required to obtain the certified copy of the Award should be excluded by applying the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (b) A learned Judge of this Court before whom the revision application was placed for hearing, noticing the conflict of judicial opinion, referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench of this Court. This revision application was directed to be placed for hearing along with other matters involving the same question which had been referred to a larger Bench. In those matter, however, this Court found that the question did not arise for consideration, since the Collector had dismissed the applications for condonation of delay on merit, and not on the ground of limitation.
(3.) SECTION 18 of the Act provides that any person interested who has not accepted the Award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Proviso to sub-section (2) mandates that such an application shall be made within six weeks from the date of the Collectors Award if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his Award. In other cases, the application must be made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of Collectors Award, whichever period shall first expire. The Maharashtra legislature, by enacting the Land Acquisition (Maharashtra Extension and Amendment) Act, XXXVIII of 1964, added the following sub-section (3) in section 18:- " (3) Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. " By the same Maharashtra Act, XXXVIII of 1964, the definition of the expression Court in section 3 (d) of the Limitation Act was also amended. Under section 3 (d), as it stood before its amendment, the expression Court was to mean the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government had appointed a Special Judicial Officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. At the end of section 3 (d) after its amendment as under:- "the expression Court (except in sub-section (3) of section 18) means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it hereby empowered to do) a Special Judicial Officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under this Act. " It is obvious that this amendment was necessitated on account of the amendment of section 18 of the Act by adding sub-section (3) thereto.;