Lachharam vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to send the reference application of the petitioner dated 05.09.2003 (Annexure P/2) alongwith relevant records before the competent Court for adjudication in accordance with law.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that 0.23 acre of the land situated in Patwari Halka No. 13, village Tushar, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa was acquired by the State Government for construction of sub-distribution canal, Kachhanda. Thereafter, by award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was approved by the Collector, compensation was paid on 13.06.2003 (Annexure P/1). Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the petitioner made a reference application on 05.09.2003 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities but no action was taken, thus, the petitioner filed an application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa which was not accepted and returned to the petitioner. Thus, this petition.

Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even after making various efforts by filing application before the Land Acquisition Officer, the dispute has not been referred to the Court. Even, the application made to the Additional District Judge, was returned back to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner has not filed any application to the Collector for referring his case to the competent jurisdictional court. Thus, at this stage, no direction may be issued to the respondent authorities for making reference.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The petitioner could not point out any document or application filed u/s 18(1) of the Act, 1894 for referring the dispute to the Court for determination of the compensation as well as objection in other aspects. The applications made to the Land Acquisition Officer on 05.09.2003 (Annexure P/2) is of no assistance to the petitioner as there is no mention or request for referring the matter to the Court. Subsequently, after a period of five years, again a representation was made to the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.01.2008 (Annexure P/3). In fact, the petitioner ought to have made application to the Collector, which has not been done in the instant case. Thereafter, an application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act, 1894 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Sakti, on 23.02.2011, which was beyond the specified time limit as provided u/s 18(a) of the Act, 1894.

Section 18 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:

Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken :

Provided that every such application shall be made -

a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire.

Thus, at this stage, no direction can be issued to the Collector for referring the dispute to the competent jurisdictional Court under the provisions of section 18 of the Act, 1894 when the petitioner himself has failed in approaching the Collector within the specified time, as aforestated.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.

No order as to costs.