ORDER
1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, this C.R.P. has been taken up for final disposal and the same is accordingly disposed of by this order.
2. It appears that a petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was presented before the reference Court by an Advocate appearing for the petitioner praying to direct the opponent (petitioner herein) to refer the case to the Reference Court for adjudication regarding enhancement of compensation. The said petition filed on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Counsel was duly examined and registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge at Karwar. It appears that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also filed vakalat for the party. After the respondent entered appearance, he took exception to the application stating that the petition is not signed by the party but the same has been signed by the Advocate appearing for the party. The Court below, after hearing both sides, has concluded that the Advocate being the authorised agent of the party, the petition is properly presented to the Court. In support of his view, he has relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court in Rishikesh Mitter v State of West Bengal. Accordingly, he overruled the objections raised by the petitioner herein and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision petition. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petition under Section 18(3)(b) having not been signed by the party interested and the same being signed only by an Advocate, it is no petition in the eye of law and hence, the order made by the Court below is clearly illegal.
3. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides, I am of the view that the view taken by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference by this Court. In Rishikesh Mitter's case, supra, it has been held that the reference made by the Collector was competent even assuming that the claimant should have put his signature on the written application, the absence of the signature was a mere irregularity and did not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain the application and to make the reference. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petition under Section 18(3)(b) was presented at the instance of the party interested by the duly authorised Advocate of the claimant who had signed the application. It appears that the said application had not been signed by the claimant himself. But it has been signed by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The Advocate who has signed the application on behalf of the claimant had also filed his vakalat to show that he was an authorised agent of the claimant. The Court below was satisfied that a proper written application on behalf of the claimant under Section 18(3)(b) has been duly made before it and accordingly it overruled the technical objection raised by the other side and directed the L.A.O. to make the reference in accordance with law. It would be of some relevance to note that under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act the period of limitation for requisition for reference is six weeks from the date of the Collector's award in a case where the person making the application was present or represented before the Collector. Further, a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 12 mandates the Collector to give notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. It would thus be clear that the person interested shall make his application for reference within six weeks from the date of the award when either he was present personally or was represented by a Counsel or agent. Therefore, the law recognises the appearance of the person interested through a Counsel or an agent. That means a person interested can be represented by a Counsel or an agent in the proceedings. If that be so, there is no prohibition for a Counsel or an agent to make an application for reference on behalf of the person interested under Section 18(3)(b). In other words when the law recognises the representation or appearance of a person interested through a Counsel or an agent, then it will be a valid presentation if the application is made by an agent or a Counsel on behalf of the person interested. It has to be mentioned that a Counsel is not a mere agent of the client. He has a tripartite relationship, one with the public, another with the Court and the third with his client. An application signed by an Advocate for the party binds the party and therefore it can be construed to be an application by the party himself, though he has not signed the same. An Advocate who has filed vakalat for interested party was a recognised agent of the said party and hence the application filed by the Advocate on behalf of the person interested can be deemed to be an application made by the interested party himself. It is no doubt true that under Section 18(3)(b) a person interested has to make an application. But the Advocate appearing for that person having filed the vakalath on his behalf before the reference Court, being an authorised representative and an agent of the person interested, could also legitimately contend that he has locus standi to move such application on behalf of the person interested. Such application would constitute a proper application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, when the application was made on behalf of his client (the person interested), the Court below was right in entertaining the same. Therefore, the order made by the Court below cannot be assailed in revision. It has to be stated therefore that an application duly presented by an authorised agent of a person interested can also be construed as an application filed by the person interested especially when the same has not been objected to by the claimant himself. In my view, therefore, the application made by the Counsel on behalf of his client was quite proper and valid and the Court below was justified in entertaining the same and passing orders therein in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality in the order made by the Court below. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the application filed by an authorised agent of the claimant under Section 18(3)(b) had been validly made before the reference Court and the Court below was justified in allowing the same. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order made by the Court below. Hence, there is no merit in any of the contentions taken by the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.