1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to make a reference under Sec. is or the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter caned the act to the appropriate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this enquiry are that the Government acquired Acs. 1-5 cents of land in connection with the expansion of the Industrial Training Institute. The petitioner who claimed himself to be the owner of a portion of that land demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per cent the land acquisition Officer however by his award dated 5-1-1960 awarded compensation at me rate of Rs. 100/- per cent. That amount of compensation was issued by me Acquisition authority through a cheque in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner received the cheque on 16-11-1960. The petitioner however received that amount under protest ants endorsed on me receipt; “The dispute may kindly be referred to the court of law”. In spite of this request the grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector hasnotmado any reference under Sec. 18 of the Act, to the civil court it is now sought in this petition that the respondent should be compelled to refer the dispute to the civil court. The short question which arises for decision is whether me endorsement which me petitioner has made or the receipt requesting the Collector to refer the dispute to the Court of law complies with the requirements of section 18 of the Act.
2. Section 18 as far as it is relevant for the purpose or this enquiry is in me following terms:
“18.(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, re-quire that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be ta me measurement of me land, me amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of me compensation amongst me persons interested.
3. The application shall state the grounds on which objection to me Award is taken.”
4. From a reading of the above said provision it becomes manifestly clear that to enable me Collector to make a reference there must be in the first instance an application in writing requesting for a reference by me party who is interested in such a reference. The application must pray for reference to the court in respect of all or anyone of me matters mentioned in Sec. 18 namely, whether the objections relate to measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment of me amount amongst the persons interested. The last thing which Section 18 requires is that the application has to be made within the period of limitation specified in me proviso to section 18.
5. It cannot be in doubt that the above factors are conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court to whom reference is to be made, it is also not in doubt that importance will be attached not to me form but to the substance of me application made. If me written application substantially complies with the requirements of that section, it cannot be said that the Collector can refuse to refer. It must be remembered that while making a reference the Collector does not act merely as an agent or the Government. He acts like any other statutory authority functioning with the powers conferred on him under the Act. It follows that he has to act judicially in making the reference. It is no doubt true that if the application does not comply with the requirements of section 18, he may withhold the reference. But it is not open to him to decide an application under section 18 on merits of objections raised therein and refuse) to refer the matter to the civil court. All that he can do is to decide whether the formalities or the requirements laid down in sec. 16 of the Act have been complied with or not. It the collector either refuses to enquire into the question whether the formalities have been complied with or not, or unauthorisedly refuse to refer the matter, or if he is wrong in the view he has taken as to the maintainability of the petition and on that ground refuses to make a reference, it is always open to the person aggrieved to approach this Court in order to compel the Collector to make a reference under section 18 of the Act.
6. That being the true position of law, as I understand It, what I have to find out is whether the request made by the petitioner substantially complies with the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner before me had put in his claim before the Acquisition ??? detail. His only complaint was that the quantum of compensation has not been adequately fixed. He was demanding at the rate of Rs. 500/- per cent, while he was granted only at the rate of Rs. 100 - per cent. In ms request which he made by an endorsement on the receipt, it is stated that he received the amount under protest, which necessarily implies that he was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Acquisition Officer and it is only for that purpose that he wanted the reference to be made. The ground on which reference was sought therefore was clear in his request. It is not necessary under the section for him to give details of the grounds on the basis of which he wants the Collector to make a reference. It is enough if the written application discloses the ground which he wants to agitate before the civil court, in this case no party is in doubt about quantum of compensation as he was not satisfied with it. That is why he received the amount under protest.
7. The next factor which according to the section is required is that the application must be filed within limitation. Undoubtedly the request made by him was wen within the limitation. I can see therefore no ground for the Collector to either sleep over the matter or refuse to make any reference. In my judgment the above said request fulfils all the requirements of section 18 and it can-not be said that the formalities prescribed in section its are not followed in making that request. I am fortified lit my conclusion by the following two decisions:
a) Krishnamal v. Collector of Coimbatore, AIR 1927 Mad 282
b) Provident Investment Co. v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1935 Bom 319.
8. The result therefore is wat the writ petition is allowed. The writ will issue. The Collector as defined in the Act, i.e, L.A Officer, the 2nd respondent is directed to make a proper reference to the appropriate civil court. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.
AH/R.G.D
9. Petition allowed.