Parasu Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.7.2003, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Gautam Buddh Nagar gave an award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20.9.2003 but the petitioner filed an application u/s 18 of the Act only on 21.1.1997. That application has been dismissed as time barred by the impugned order.

The limitation for filing an application u/s 18 has been mentioned in the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act which states :

"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."

It may be mentioned that there is no power In the Collector to condone the delay in filing the application u/s 18.

In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Another Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that the Collector/L.A.O. has no power to condone the delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44080 of 2003, Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 30.9.2003. In that decision a general mandamus has been issued to the State Government that whenever there is a dispute regarding limitation, such authority shall adjudicate the same and refer it to the Court as contemplated u/s 18 of the Act, even if the authority is of the view that the application is time barred.

This Division Bench has not noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Mantled Chandulal (supra) wherein it has clearly been held in paragraph 8 that if the application u/s 18 has not been made within time the Collector has no power to make a reference. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court the observation made in the decision of the Division Bench in Savitri Devi''s case (supra) to the contrary is not good law.

In the present case, the application u/s 18 copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner''s case was never that his application u/s 18 was within time. In that application he has not mentioned that he had no knowledge of the award. It is not stated in that application as to whether the applicant or representative was present before the S.L.A.O. when he gave the award. It also does not mention when the notice u/s 12(2) was received by the applicant or whether he received it at all. In fact the plea taken in the application u/s 18 was that he was pursuing the proceedings u/s 30 of the Act, and hence the delay should be condoned. Even if that is so it only means that the applicant himself admits that his application was time barred but he is seeking for condonation of delay. This cannot be done as held by the Supreme Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal (supra).

Moreover a perusal of the application u/s 18 copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and affidavit in support thereof shows that it has been mentioned in paragraph 5 that the application u/s 30 was decided on 16.11.1996 but application u/s 18 was filed on 21.1.1997 that is beyond six weeks from 16.11.1996.

Since we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U. P. (supra) does not lay down the correct law, inasmuch as it holds that the Collector cannot dismiss an application u/s 18 as time barred, which is contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. S.M. Chandulal (supra), we would ordinarily have referred the matter to a larger Bench.'' However, from a perusal of the Judgment in Savitri Devi''s case (supra) we find that that decision is wholly distinguishable as in that case the petitioner''s version was that she had no knowledge of the award and no notice was served on her u/s 12(2). That is not the pleading of the petitioner in his application u/s 18 in this case. Hence, Savitri Devi''s case (supra) has no application here, and there is therefore, no need to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

Hence, we find no infirmity in the order dated 18.7.2003. The petition is dismissed.