Gurbaksh Singh and others vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Haryana

R.N. Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed u/s 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the order of the Land Acquisition Collector, dated June 2, 1973, by which the prayer of the petitioners for making a reference to the Court regarding enhancement of the compensation, has been rejected.

It is stated by the petitioners in their affidavit that they were residing out of Rohtak where the land in dispute was allotted to them in lieu of their land in West Pakistan, and therefore, they did not know that their land had been acquired by the State Government for the construction of the Medical College. They further stated that they came to know about the award on August 12, 1971, and immediately four days thereafter, that is, on August 16, 1971, they filed the application u/s 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the Court for the enhancement of the compensation. The application has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector on June 2, 1973 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner have come up in revision against the said order.

The only question to be decided is whether the petitioners filed an application for referring the matter to the Court within limitation. From the affidavit of the petitioners it is evident that they were living out of Rohtak and they did not come to know about the acquisition of the land. The affidavit has not been controverted by the respondents. They came to know about the acquisition of the land for the first time on August 12, 1971, when they took the money under protest. Section 18(2)(b) says that in such circumstances the reference could be made within six months from the date of the Collector''s award. ''The date of the award has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, wherein it was observed as follows:--

The expression ''the date of the award'' used in proviso (b) to section 18(2) of the Act must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. It will be unreasonable to construe the words from the date of the Collector''s award used in the proviso to section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.

The said view has been followed by this Court in Om Parkash and another v. Land Acquisition Collector Punjab. P.W.D. and Roads Branch, Ambala C.R. No. 537 of 1963 (Civil Revision No. 537 of 1963) decided on March 11, 1964. If that view is taken, then the limitation in this case would start against the petitioners for making the application u/s 18 of the Act on August 12, 1971. It is consequently within limitation and the view taken by the Land Acquisition Collector is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

For the reasons recorded above, I accept the revision Petition, set aside the impugned order and direct that the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the matter to the Court.