S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constition of India by Laldeen for quashing the order (Ex. 10) dated January 24, 1976, by which, the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaisalmer declined to make a reference under s. 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (No. XXIV of 1953) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter ).
(2.) A few facts leading to this writ petition may briefly be recounted here. The award (Ex. 8) dated March 20, 1975 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaisalmer in respect of the well situate in Khasra No. 77 of village Hawatala which was acquired and handed over to military authorities for the purpose of establishing of Field Firing Range. The amount determined was Rs. 10, 930. 70p as detailed in the award (Ex. 8 ). A direction was made by the Land Acquisition Officer that as the compensation relates to the public property, it should be placed at the disposal of the Collector, Jaisalmer for public utilities. An application (Ex. 9) under s. 18 of the Act was made by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector), Jaisalmer for making a reference to the court concerned. The Land Acquisition Officer declined to make the reference and rejected the application vide order (Ex. 10) dated January 24, 1976 on the ground that the petitioner has not shown any new ground regarding his title to the property acquired and the proof had already been completely examined at the time of award. The petitioner filed this writ petition on March 31,1976, inter alia, praying that the order (Ex. 10) dated January 24, 1976 may be quashed and the non-petitioners may be compelled to make a reference to the District Judge, Jodhpur under s. 18 of the Act. On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed on September 1, 1976 opposing the writ petition on various grounds. One of the preliminary objections raised was regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of revision under s. 18 (3) of the Act which he failed to avail and, therefore, this Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Mr. H. C. Jam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. D. Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate. Mr. H. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law when he refused to make a reference under s. 18 of the Act and rejected the petitioner's application, for, on fulnlment of the conditions laid down in s. 18 of the Act, he was bound to make the reference to the Court concerned. In support of his argument, Mr. H. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Jagarnath Vs. L. A. Deputy Collector (1), Rampratap vs. Revenue Minister (2), Prahlad Pd. vs. T. F. Kumari (3), Kasiviswanadham vs. Sub-Collector (4), P. M. Association vs. Collector, Anantapur (5) and Sugandhi vs. Collector, Raipur (6 ).
(3.) S. 18 of the Act is as under: " 18. Reference to Court. (1)The Government Department on whose behalf (or the Company for which)acquisition is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof 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 amount of costs allowed, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2)The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award or the amendment thereof is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made, (a)if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or the amendment thereof, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award or the amendment thereof, and (b)in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), within six months from the date of Collector's award or the amendment thereof whichever period shall first expire. (3)Any order made by the Collector on an application made 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. " Subs. (1)of S. 18 of the Act corresponds to s. 18 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act, (No. 1 of 1894 ). No useful purpose will be served by examining the aforesaid authorities in detail, for, there is an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Md. Nasruddin vs. State of Maharashtra (7), where s. 14 (1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (1809f) in parinateria with the provisions of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (No. 1 of 1894) came up for consideration. His Lordships A. P. Sen, J. , with whom their Lordships Jaswant Singh and R. S. Pathak, JJ. agreed observed as under: " The word 'require' in S. 18 of the Act implies compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference. The Collector is required to make a reference under S. 18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first condition is that there shall be a written application by a person interested who has not accepted the award". Keeping in view the principles laid down in Md. Nasruddin's case (supra), let me now proceed to examine the order (Ex 10) dated January 24,1976 by which the Land Acquisition Officer refused to make the reference under s. 18 (1) and rejected the application of the petitioner. The reasons mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer in the impugned order are that the reference pertains to a public property and that the petitioner (claimant) has not shown any new ground in support of his claim and the proof given by him has already been completely examined at the time of making the award. To quote the Land Acquisition Qfficer:- ;