Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The disputed land consists of 1.75 acres in plots Nos. 517/32 and 527/1 in village Mundagan in the district of Kalahandi. The Forest Department took possession of the land In 1954 for construction of quarters. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was made on 25-3-60. The respondent claimed compensation at Rs. 5,56, 485.00. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter to be referred to as the Collector) gave an award on 5-9-1961 for Rs. 2,328.75 nP. The respondent had knowledge of the award on 15-8-62 and did not accept it. By a written application to the Collector under Section 18, she requested that the objection should be referred for determination to the Court. The Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi (hereinafter to be referred to as the District Judge) on 23-5-63 under Section 19 of the Act. The District Judge entertained the reference on 6-7-63. On the 19th July, '63 the District Judge transferred the case to the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, who, after taking evidence disposed of the reference and passed the Award on 24-7-1964 holding that the respondent was entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,33,903.10 P. Against this award, the Collector filed the appeal.

The first Notification No. 7019 is earlier in point of time. By this notification, the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangirpatna were conterminous with the limits of the districts of Bolangir and Kalahandi The notification was issued under Section 13(1) of the Civil Courts Act, which lays down that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette fix and alter the local limits of the jurisdiction of any civil court under that Act. In this notification there was no reference to Section 14(1) of the Civil Courts Act, whereby the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, fix or alter the place or places at which any Civil Court under that Act is to be held. Thus, under Notification No. 7019, the place of sitting of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, in respect of Kalahandi district, was not fixed at Bhawanipatna, the headquarters of Kalahandi District Notification No. 7024 was in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject. Accordingly, it was in supersession of Notification No. 7019 issued earlier on the very same day. By this notification, the district of Kalahandi was constituted into a separate sub-judgeship and the place of sitting of the Subordinate Judge, Kalahandi, was declared to be Bhawanipatna, under Section 14(1) of the Civil Courts Act.

Both the aforesaid notifications read together lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir had no jurisdiction over the district of Kalahandi. It was the Subordinate Judge of Kalahandi who had complete jurisdiction over that district and his place of sitting was fixed at Bhowanipatna.

5A. By virtue of Notification No. 7655 dated 14-11-61, the Subordinate Judge of Kalahandi, sitting at Bhowanipatna, who is the principal Subordinate Judge there was conferred the powers of a Court by Section 3(d) of the Act. The Subordinate Judge Kalahandi was therefore the proper court to entertain the reference made by the Collector under Section 19 of the Act.

(iii) After the issue of the notification the District Judge of Bolangir-Kalahandi had no power to function as a Court under the Act.
(iv) The Subordinate Judge of Kalahandi can alone function as a Court under the Act in respect of Kalahandi district and he alone is competent to hear the reference in question.

16. Ordinarily, this case would go back to the referring Bench for disposing of the appeal in the light of the answers given to the questions formulated by that Bench. In view however of our answers, we have thought it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally.