- (1.)THIS appeal at the instance of the State Government arises out of an application under section 8 (a) of Act II of 1948 read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent had filed cross-objection in all these appeals. Ramkali bhattacharjee (Appeal No. 338 of 1958), Rampada Chatterjee (Appeal no. 339 of 1958) and Jatindra Nath sarkar (Appeal No. 340 of 1958) being aggrieved by the award of compensation made application under section 8 (a) of Act II of 1948 read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claim for compensation arose in this case for the purpose of Assam Rail link Project. A considerable portion of land lying in the town of Siliguri was acquired by the Government under Act II of 1948. In appeal No. 338 of 1958, 1. 98 acres of Rupni land was acquired. The award has been made in respect thereof to the extent of rs. 5, 900/ -. Notice of award under section 12 (2) of Act I of 1894 was served on Ramkali Bhattacharjee on 6th february, 1951. Application under section 8 (a) of the Act for reference was filed on 7th September, 1951. claiming the value of the land at the rate of not less than Rs. 2000/- per cottah. In appeal No. 339 of 1958 the notice under section 12 (ii) of the Land acquisition Act was served on 6th february, 1951 and the reference was filed on 7th September, 1951. In so far as the F. A. 340 of 1958 is concerned it appears that the notice was served. on 6th February, 1951 and the reference was filed on 17th June, 1951.
(2.)MR Chakraborty on behalf of the appellants contended that the order of the learned Collector sending the reference is prima facie illegal as the reference was clearly out of time under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that the condition precedent for making the reference is to be found in section 18 of the Act. If it is found that the reference is Out of time the learned Collector has no jurisdiction to make the reference and the reference is void ab-initio.
(3.)MR. Gupta however contended that once the reference is made the authority hearing the reference cannot hold that the reference is not maintainable. Once, it is argued, the reference is made the question of limitation cannot be decided by the Civil Court. Alternatively Mr. Gupta argued that if no reference is made by the Land Acquisition Collector or a wrong reference is made by the said Collector there is no remedy to the aggrieved party and as such the order of reference by the Land Acquisition Collector is an administrative order and cannot be corrected by the High Court before the Constitution came into force even if the reference is illegal. Mr. Gupta further argued that under Act II of 1948 there is no provision of notice as contained in section 12 (2) of the Land acquisition Act. If there is no provision in section 7 or 8 (2), the question of Limitation does not arise in a matter of reference under the said Act.