Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 25 (HP)

SHYAM LAL v. SULTAN SINGH

1977-06-23

R.S.PATHAK

body1977
ORDER 1. The Compensation Officer, Paonta, has made this and the connected references in three cases pending before him under S. 11 of the Himachal Pra­desh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The references purport to have been made under S. 113 and O. 46 R. 1 of the Code of Civil Pro­cedure. According to the statement of the case drawn up by the Compensation Officer, the point on which the opinion of this Court is sought is whether S. 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act is ultra vires on the ground that it viola­tes the fundamental rights of the respondent. 2. At the outset, the question for consideration is whether the three re­ferences are competent. S. 113 of the Code empowers a court to state a case and refer it for the opinion of the High Court. O. 46 R. 1 of the Code provides for a reference to the High Court where in certain cases a court trying a suit or appeal or executing a decree entertains a reasonable doubt in respect of any question of law or usage having the force of law. The two provisions contem­plate a reference by a subordinate court to the High Court. In my opinion, the Compensation Officer cannot be descri­bed as a court. Ipso facto the provisions of S. 113 and O. 46 R. 1 of the Code cannot be invoked. And no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, or in any other statute has been brought to my notice which brings into play S. 113 and O. 46 of the Code in respect of proceedings taken by the Compensa­tion Officer under that Act. S. 25 of the Act confers upon a Compensation Officer the powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, but only for the limited purpose of administering oaths, taking evidence and enforcing the attend­ance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents. In the absence of any material indicating that S. 113 and O. 46 of the Code can be invoked by a Compensation Officer, the three refe­rences must be held incompetent. 3. Accordingly, the references shall be returned to the Compensation Officer, Paonta without any opinion of this Court. There is no order as to costs. Order accordingly