AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—The applicant herein has called in question the order passed by the Collector, Bastar on 13-6-05 dismissing his application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by which he made a prayer for referring the matter to the District Court for grant of higher compensation as he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded in his favour vide order dated 10-3-03 in Land Acquisition Case No. 27/A-82/93-94.
Applicant''s application u/s 18 has been dismissed by holding the same as barred by limitation.
The above land acquisition case was initiated to acquire 3.991 hectares of land for Kumravand Udvahan Irrigation Scheme at Village Dharmavur, Tehsil Jagdalpur. Lands of 37 holders were involved in the said acquisition. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 3-3-03 which was approved by the Collector on 10-3-2003. The application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894") was submitted on 23-9-04.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the application is within limitation, as it has been submitted within six months from the date of knowledge of the award. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the application was apparently barred by limitation as it was presented after 1 1/2 years from the date of award.
Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in JT (2005) 8 SC 146. He submits that it has been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the limitation would commence from the date of knowledge of the award.
In Para 2 of the application u/s 18 of the Act, 1894, the applicant has averred that he was never noticed u/s 12(2) of the Act, 1894 and no notice of the passing of the award was ever issued to him. It has also been stated that he came to know about the award in the month of July, 2004 and after obtaining certified copies of the relevant records on 13-9-04, the application has been preferred.
The Collector, Bastar has dismissed the application on the ground that since notification under Sections 4 and 6 were published in Official Gazette and thereafter notice u/s 9 was also issued it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the land acquisition proceedings.
In the matter of Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the limitation under the latter part of Section 18(2) (b) of the Act has to be computed from the date on which the claimants got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive.
In Bhagwan Das and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. JT 2010 (2) SC 483 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle after relying two of its earlier decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Another, and Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, .
From the record of the Land Acquisition proceedings, it does not appear that the petitioner was present before Land Acquisition Officer when the award was prepared on 3-3-2003 and thereafter when the award was approved by the Collector on 10-3-03. The record also does not contain any notice issued to the holders of the land including the notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act, therefore relying on the law laid by the Supreme Court in the case Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer (supra), Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Bhagwan Das and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), this Court is of the opinion that n the present case the period of limitation for seeking reference would be reckoned from the date of knowledge of award of the Collector. Since there is nothing on the record to traverse or contradict the statement made by the applicant in Para 2 of his application u/s 18 of the Act that he came to know about the award in the month of July, 2004, it is held that the applicant became aware of the award in July, 2004 and thus the application having been preferred within six months from the date of knowledge of the award was within six months, and was thus within limitation.
In the result, civil revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The order passed by the Collector is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge, Bastar in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
No order as to costs.