Hardial Singh Sidhu vs State of Punjab and anothers

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

The landowner has directed this civil revison against the order dated 26th December, 1997 of the Land Acquisition Collector, dismissing his application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground of being barred by time.

In brief, the facts are that land measuring 2 kanals forming part of Khasara No. 2876 situated in the revenue estate of Bhatinda, belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 12th December, 1974 for development of Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded some compensation of the acquired land vide his award dated 28th March, 1977. The petitioner alleged that he was never served with any notice under Section 9 or 12 of the Act and that he came to know for the first time of the award on 23rd January, 1978 when he want to Bhatinda for some domestic affair. Thereafter, on 26th June, 1978 he filed an application for making a reference to the Court of the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector rejected this application vide his impugned order dated 26th December, 1979 by holding it tobe barred by time as notice under Section 9 of the Act was served upon the petitioner.

No return has been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab controverting the above referred averments in the petition.

Mr. A.N. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended by relying upon the findings of a Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India, 1983 C.L.J. 42 that the petitioner has been denied the right of meaningful enquiry by the Collector as he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application. He has also relid upon an unreported decision of R.N. Mittal, J. in Balwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, C.R. No. 444 of 1980, decided on 29th July, 1980. Mr. Nipun Mital, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner canhave recourse to the provsions of Section 28A of the Act and claim higher rate of compensation to the same extent to which it has been enhanced by the Court regarding the adjointing land acquired vide same notification.

No doubt, under Section 28A of the Act, inserted by an amendment of the parent Act by Act No. 68 of 1984, all the persons interedsted inthe acquired land covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector notiwithstanding whether they had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, can get the benefit of the award of the Court in connection with other land acquired vide same notification, provided they file the application before the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court, but all the same, in the present case the petitioner did file an applicationfor making a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court alleging that he was not served with any notice under Section 9 or 12(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Collector to have heard the petitioner on the point of limitation before rejecting his application. The findings of this Court in Balwant Singh''s case (supra) as well as of the Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh''s case (supra) in para 11 thereof, leaves no doubt that the petitioner should not be denied the right of meaningful enquiry by the Collector or the Court. This view was also taken by R.N. Mittal, J. in Shanti Devi v. Maya Devi, 1982(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 106, C.R. No. 1677 OF 1979, decided on 9th November, 1979.

The matter does not rest here as the Collector had dismissed the application for making reference to the Civil Court on the ground that the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 9 of the Act on 9.2.1975 and he has not taken into considerationthe provisions of Section 12 (2) of Act which require giving of notice for collecting the compensation after giving of the award. The law is well settled on the point that the period of limitation of six months for filing the referance under the proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act had to be reckoned from the date of the knowleged of the petitioner if he was not present at the time of the pronouncement of the awardor represented during the award proceedings before the Collector. The findings of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1500 can be safely referred in this regard.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Collector is hereby set aside by accepting this revision petition with costs. The Collector is directed to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act after hearing the petitioner on the point of limitation. Costs are assessed at Rs. 100/.