Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 552 (ALL)

Param Singh v. State of U. P.

2004-03-12

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2004
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.10.1997, Annexures-5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to forward the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for decision by the District Judge, Ghaziabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In this case it appears that the award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.2.1992 and the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed only on 30.7.1996. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order as time barred. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court. 4. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act states that every application under Section 18 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 under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” 5. In the present case, the application was filed after a delay of more than four years. It has been stated in paragraph 11 of the petition that the petitioners came to know about the award dated 25.2.1992 for the first time on 3.6.1996 when other villagers whose land was similarly acquired went to collect the compensation. 6. It is stated in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the petition that the petitioners or their representative were not present when the award was given and no information was given by the S.L.A.O. that the award would be pronounced on 25.2.1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of the award should mean the date of knowledge of the award as held by the Supreme Court in Harish Chand Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500 ; State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jahan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604 ; State of Punjab v. Satindra Bir Singh, JT 1995 (2) SC 572 ; Jaswant Rai v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1989 P&H 261 ; Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector, AIR 1985 Guj 170 ; Usaf v. Collector, 1989 LACC 246. 7. 7. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that due information was given of the declaration of the award dated 26.2.1992. Notice of the award was pasted on the notice Board of the office of the S.L.A.O. and copy of the said notice was also sent for public advertisement (munadi) through the chainmen (peon) in the concerned village. True copies of these notices are C.A. 1 and 2 to the counter-affidavit. It has further been stated in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit that other nearby land holders namely Dharampal, Dharamveer both son of Kale and Gajraj son of Harchander filed their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act well within time, i.e., in the year 1992 and hence the contention of the petitioner that they had knowledge of the award for the first time on 3.6.1996 cannot be accepted. Even from 3.6.1996 the reference was barred by time as the petitioner has filed the same after six weeks. 8. In our opinion this petition deserves to succeed. 9. There is no dispute that petitioner or his representatives were not present when the award was delivered. Hence clause (a) of the proviso to Section 18 (2) does not apply. As regard clause (b) this is in two parts. The first part states that the application has to be moved within six weeks of receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2). 10. There is no allegation in the counter-affidavit that the Collector sent any notice to the petitioner. In our opinion mere pasting on the notice board or munadi (beat of drums) does not amount to notice from the Collector under Section 12. Hence it has to be held that the period of limitation is six months from the date of the Collector’s award. It is well-settled that date of award means the date of the knowledge of the award as held in the aforementioned decisions. 11. In our opinion the mode of notice by beat of drums (munadi) is totally outdated in this modern age. If an award is given it should be communicated by the Collector as required by Section 12 (2), which states : “The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not personally present or by their representatives when the award was made.” 12. If an award is given it should be communicated by the Collector as required by Section 12 (2), which states : “The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not personally present or by their representatives when the award was made.” 12. The obligation on the Collector is not only to intimate the passing of the award but to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of it vide AIR 1995 Guj 170 . This is necessary to enable the tenure holder to exercise his valuable right under Section 18 within the time prescribed. 13. In our opinion the notice along with the copy of the award must be sent to the person concerned either by registered A/D post or personally through some messenger or by courier, and if service is not effected in that manner then the notice with the essential contents of the award should be published in some well known newspaper having wide publication. 14. In the present case, in the counter-affidavit it has only been stated that the award was published by pasting it in the notice board of the office of the S.L.A.O. and by beat of drums (munadi). In our opinion this is not adequate and hence we have to conclude that proper notice of the award was not given to the petitioners, and they came to know of the award only on 3.6.1996. The application under Section 18 was filed well within 6 months of that date. For the reasons given above this petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. The Collector is directed to make a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 forthwith.