S.G. Sapre v. Collector

1. The question in this case is whether an order by Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, refusing to make a reference to a civil Court is liable to revision by this Court. It was held in 26 NLR 309,1 following 47 Mad 3572 and 47 Bom 699,3 that a Collector is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and that therefore no revision application lies-against his order. A contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court and certain other Courts. In 36 IC 2134 the Punjab Chief Court held that a Collector refusing to make a reference under S. 18 was acting judicially, but the question is whether he is a Court subordinate to the High Court. The Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court held in 22 IC 6525 that the Collector acted judicially and that therefore it had a right to interfere in revision, but it based its decision mainly on the view that revision application in such matters was entertained by the Calcutta High Court. In 39 IC 6506 the Patna High Court held that the Collector was a Court and that therefore it was entitled to interfere with the Collector's, order, the decision again being based mainly on the view that this was the practice in Calcutta. In the most recent Calcutta decision in 61 Cal 10417 it has been conceded that a Collector is not a Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC, or Section 107 of the Government of India Act, and that technically Section 115 of the CPC may not be applicable. The Court however remarked that there ought to be some remedy against such a wrongful rejection of an application for reference and that it had been the previous practice of this High Court to entertain such an application for revision. In conclusion the Court merely stated: “We will not decide against, the petitioner on the preliminary point,” but it eventually decided against the petitioner on the merits.

2. There is a full discussion of the point in 47 Mad 357 and 47 Bom 699 and in both these cases the decision reached was that the Collector is not a Court; and even if he is a Court, he is not subordinate to the High Court.

3. It may be desirable that there should be some power to interfere with the Collector's order, but I agree with those decisions that there can be no interference under Section 115 of the CPC, or under Section 107 of the Government of India Act. The application for revision is dismissed without notice to the non-applicant.

M.D/R.K

4. Application dismissed.