Shankar Lal Sah vs District Land Acquisition Officer and Another

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

They are heard.

Original Petitioner Shankar Lal Sah filed this writ petition in the year 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the following reliefs:

i) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 31-3-86 passed by Respondent No. 1;

ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents to refer the case for determination of compensation u/s 18 of the Act;

iii) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act;

iv) any other writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to;

v) award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.

During the pendency of the writ petition, Shankar Lal Sah died and his legal representatives Madan Lal Sah; Mahesh Lal Sah and Mukul Sah were allowed to be substituted vide order dated 08-07-1991.

The Petitioner''s application filed u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was dismissed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital vide order dated 27-04-1987 (Annexure 5), as the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks from the service of the notice u/s 12(2) of the Act.

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in dismissing the Petitioner''s application filed u/s 18 of the Act without considering the grounds taken by the Petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the application u/s 18 of the Act.

Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and contended that as the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no power to condone the delay in filing the application u/s 18 of the Act.

The award in the case was passed on 31-03-1986 and the notice u/s 12(2) was served on Shankar Lal Sah on 19-04-1986. The application u/s 18 was filed on 07-08-1986. Thus, admittedly, the application filed by Shankar Lal Sah u/s 18 of the Act was filed beyond six weeks of the service of the notice on him u/s 12(2) of the Act.

The Apex Court in the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, while considering the power of the Land Acquisition Officer to condone the delay in filing the application u/s 18 of the Act, observed in para 14 as follows:

...Since, the application u/s 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, the High Court did not commit any error in holding that the application was barred by limitation. It was not disputed before us that the Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference u/s 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the aforesaid section.

In the present case also, the application u/s 18 was filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks from the service of the notice u/s 12(2) of the Act. True, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of the delay in filing the application u/s 18 mainly on the ground that Shankar Lal Sah at the relevant time was an old person aged about 84 years and as such, he could not file the application u/s 18 within the prescribed period of six weeks.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no power to condone the delay in filing the application u/s 18 of the Act as has been held by the Apex Court in the above-quoted dictum in the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra).

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure 5) whereby the application filed by original Petitioner Shankar Lal Sah u/s 18 of the Act was dismissed as time barred.

The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, hereby, dismissed.