Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1343 (RAJ)

Jagdeep Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2003-09-19

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE

body2003
Honble PRASAD,J.–Heard. (2). In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the reference order made by the referee Court against an award given by the Land Acquisition Officer. The referee Court has held that the reference application is time barred. Such was the finding of the referee Court on Issue No. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that issue No.2 was an issue raised on the basis of pleadings of the respondents. This, the burden lay on the respondents to establish this issue. No evidence was produced by the respondents and, therefore, in view of Section 101 of Evidence Act, burden being on the respondents, the issue cannot be held against the appellant. (3). Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kesrimal & Ors. (1), if the party raising the dispute does not produce any evidence the issue has to go against that party and, therefore, in that view of the matter, issue No.2 should not have been decided against the appellant. (4). I have considered the rival submissions. The reference application was accompanied by an application filed by the appellant himself under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by itself is a proof positive of the fact that the appellant has considered his application to be barred by time. If a party making an application itself submits that the application is time barred, other party in that contingency is not required to prove the fact be cause the party itself has admitted that the application is barred by limitation. That being the position, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no consequence because on his own showing in filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has admitted that the reference application was barred by time. (5). Learned counsel further raised an objection that the application filed by him should have been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. He has not been able to show any law on the point, wherein, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was required to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. (5). Learned counsel further raised an objection that the application filed by him should have been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. He has not been able to show any law on the point, wherein, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was required to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the contrary, a different interpretation is available by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of `Pali Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2), wherein, it has been held that the Collector should have referred the matter to the Court for deciding the question of limitation Having done so, I do not think any illegality has been committed by the Land Acquisition Officer. (6). The award money was received by the appellant in the year 1979. The reference application was preferred in the 1983, almost three years after the award money having been received. The knowledge of the appellants would definitely go beyond that an in his application no specific pleas have been raised. (7). I have perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. If the referee Court has refused to extend the limitation in the aforesaid circumstances I, do not think any illegality has been committed by the referee Court, when the reference application has been held to be beyond the prescribed time of limitation Other questions on merits were not required to be gone into in reference and they are, thus, not required to be decided in appeal because the reference application itself being barred by the time forecloses other aspects of the case. (8). In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. The appeal having no force is hereby dismissed.