Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.) This is an application by Ram Pratap under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the Revenue Minister of the State of Rajasthan dated 30-8-1951.
(2.) The circumstances in which that order came to be passed are these. A piece of land belonging to the applicant was acquired by former Jaipur State sometime before 1949, and a sum of Rs. 4,123/- as compensation for the construction standing on it and an equal piece of land as exchange were ordered to be given to the applicant. Thereupon, certain persons, who claimed to have an interest in the land acquired, made an application to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute as to the distribution of the compensation to the Civil Court under Section 18, Jaipur Land Acquisition Act (28 of 1943). The Land Acquisition Officer refused to make the reference by his order dated 1-7-1949. Thereafter, it seems that further attempts were made to get the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference, and finally on 6-2-1950, he refused to make a reference, saying that it was within his discretion whether to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act or not. It was this order against which these persons submitted what may be called a representation or revision to the Government. The order of the Revenue Minister dated the 30-81951, was passed on this representation or revision, The Revenue Minister says in his order that "the case law on the subject would justify the view that in the interest of justice, the Collector as an Administrative Officer should adopt the course of making a reference to the competent Civil Courts in all bona fide disputes, rather than making his orders final in the matter of awards, so that no objector with a prima facie claim may be put to the hardship of instituting a Civil suit. In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer should, therefore, be given a direction to do so now." It seems that though the order was passed on 30-81951, direction was already given on 20-8-1951 and it further appears that the Land Acquisition Officer has, in pursuance of this direction) referred the case to the Court.
(3.) The reason why the Revenue Minister has made this order is that there is a difference of opinion in the various High Courts on the question whether the Order of the Land Acquisition Officer can be revised by the High Court, and as such the Revenue Minister thought that the Land Acquisition Officer, who works as the agent of the Government with reference to proceedings under part II of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act, could be directed by the Government to take certain action in connection with proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. We may, however, point out that Section 18 of the Act appears in part III, which is headed "Reference to Court and procedure thereon." There is no doubt that some of the High Courts have held that the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer acts as an Administrative Officer, when he passed an order under Section 18 of the Act, Reference in this connection may be made to -' Bhagaban Das v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta', AIR 1937 Cal 705, and -- 'Bhajanilal v. Secy. of State', AIR 1932 All 568 (SB). These were, however, cases under Section 115, Civil P. C., and the Courts considered whether the High Court. could interfere under Section 115 with the order made by the Land Acquisition Officer. There was no discussion in these cases of the point whether the High Court could interfere under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. In our opinion, where Section 45, Specific Relief Act, is applicable the position is materially different, and there is a remedy provided against the Order of the Land Acquisition Officer, who wrongly refuses to make a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, and in such areas it is not right that the parties should apply to Government or that Government should give directions to the Land Acquisition Officer. We may in this connection refer to --'Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay', AIR 1923 PC 138, where it was held "If the legislature says that a Public Officer, even a Revenue Officer, shall do a thing, and he without cause or justification refuses to do that thing, the Specific Relief Act would be applicable and there would be power in the Court to compel him to give relief to the subject." This view was based on the words of "S. 45, Specific Relief Act.;