SAMANTA RADHA PRASANNA DAS Vs. PROVINCE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-1950-4-2
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on April 11,1950

SAMANTA RADHA PRASANNA DAS Appellant
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Panigrahi, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the owner of plot No. 42 in village Srikrishuapur measuring 14 and odd acres. This plot was acquired under Land Acquisition Act by the Collector and an award was passed on 20-7-48. The petitioner was not present at the time the award was made. Notice of the award was accordingly issued under Section 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-7-48. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded &, therefore, filed his objection on 3-9-48 which was within the time prescribed under Section 18 (2) (b) of the Act. The Collector, however, overruled his objection and refused to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18(1) of the Act, on the ground that the objection was barred by time-It is against this order of refusal to make a reference that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) It is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the Collector, while acting under the Land Acquisition Act is not an order of a Court subordinate to this Court and that his order is not open to revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitioner has, therefore, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari so that the mistake committed by the Collector may be recitified. As against this, however, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has got the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and that the Collector, exercising his powers under the Land Acquisition Act, is a tribunal over whom this Court has got the power of superintendence. The order of the Collector being manifestly opposed to law has resulted in great injustice to the petitioner and it is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to rectify the mistake and afford relief to the petitioner.
(3.) The order of the Collector refusing to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge is set aside and he is directed to make a reference in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the District Judge.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.