Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 759 (MP)

Jameel Ahmad v. State of M. P.

1998-10-08

V.K.AGARWAL

body1998
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter 'Act' for short), read with section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment dated 17.1.97, in MJC (Land Acquisition) No. 33/96, by IXth Addl. D.J. Bhopal, dismissing the reference under section 18(2) (b) of the 'Act', as time barred. The land Acquisition Officer on 16.12.88 passed an award under section 48 of the 'Act' which was approved by the Collector on 20.12.1988. The appellant filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer under section 18 of the 'Act' praying for referral of the matter. The land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the award to the District Court. The learned District Court by the impugned order held that though in the Land Acquisition proceedings there is an application marked as Ex. P-12 purported to be filed on 31.5.89 but the finding of the learned Reference Court is that the said application (Ex. P-12) was not filed on that date, and has been subsequently inserted in the record of the Land Acquisition Officer, and on the basis of the above finding the Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation as having been filed beyond the period prescribed under section 18(2) of the 'Act'. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding as above of the learned Reference Court regarding the application being barred by limitation was given without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant in the matter. It has been submitted that the point was never raised on behalf of the respondent-State before the Reference Court and in fact no reply was filed by, the respondent-State in the Reference Court. The only issue framed by the Reference Court was as to whether the appellant was entitled to get the amount, of compensation as claimed in para 6 of the reference application. It has been urged that the appellant having not been given an opportunity of being heard, the finding as recorded is liable to be set aside. The perusal of the learned trial Court record would indicate that the question of the application for reference having been filed beyond the prescribed period under section 18(2) of the 'Act' was not the subject matter of the issue, nor there is any specific objection in this regard raised by the respondent-State. The perusal of the learned trial Court record would indicate that the question of the application for reference having been filed beyond the prescribed period under section 18(2) of the 'Act' was not the subject matter of the issue, nor there is any specific objection in this regard raised by the respondent-State. The impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court has gone into great details regarding the filing of an application under section 18 of the 'Act' for reference on 31.5.1989, and has concluded that it was in fact not filed though there is an endorsement of the officials of the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal thereon, showing that it was presented on that date, These questions were not raised in the case, The finding of fact as above could not have been decided without giving due opportunity of hearing and without opportunity to adduce evidence to the parties. In the circumstances, the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be justified. The matter deserves to be remanded back for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the respondent to raise objections if any in the matter, whereafter necessary and proper issue shall be framed by the Reference Court. Parties shall be given due opportunity to lead evidence on the said issue, and thereafter, the question shall be decided afresh on the basis of additional evidence so adduced, and also the evidence already recorded in the case which shall also form part of the evidence in the case, and shall be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. With the above directions the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Reference Court is directed to decide the matter on merits, in accordance with law, as above. No orders as to costs.