Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 635 (GAU)

Girindra Chandra Banik v. State of Tripura

2005-08-31

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2005
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. By this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for directing the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 2, the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala to make reference pursuant to the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. A land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 19.11.1997 in L.A. case No. 10/SS/97 acquiring land measuring 1.83 acres in Khatian No. 2388, Plot No. 8488 of Badharghat Mouza in the State of Tripura. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued and an award was passed by the L.A. Collector on 9.5.1998. The notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was thereafter served on the Petitioner and others on 21.5.1998. Since there was a dispute regarding appointment of the amount of compensation so awarded by the Collector, the said dispute was referred to the learned L.A. Judge under Section 30 of the L.A. Act which was registered as Misc. (L.A.) No. 4 of 98 before the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and the Petitioner receive the notice in the said proceeding, under Section 30 of the L.A. Act on 19.1.1999. The learned L.A. Judge vide order dated 1.4.1999 decided the said proceeding under Section 30 of the L.A. Act by apportioning the amount of compensation to the effect that the present writ Petitioner Girindra Chandra Bank shall get an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Petitioner, thereafter on 9.4.1999 filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A. Collector claiming that the market value has not been determined by the Collector properly and hence the dispute regarding determination of market value of the land should be referred to the learned L.A. Judge in terms of the provisions contained in under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Since the prayer has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition for directing the L.A. Collector to refer the matter to the learned L.A. Judge under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Since the prayer has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition for directing the L.A. Collector to refer the matter to the learned L.A. Judge under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the Collector vide order dated 16.4.2005 rejected the application filed by the writ Petitioner praying for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act on the ground that the same is barred by time, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L.A. Act. 3. I have heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel to the Petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. G.A. assisted by Mr. B. Dutta, learned Advocate for the Respondents. 4. In the instant case, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, the fact of issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act and the date of passing of the award being 9.5.1998 by the L.A. Collector are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A. Collector on 9.4.1999. What has been disputed by the writ Petitioner is the date on which the notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was served on him, which according to the Respondents, was served on 21.5.1998. 5. The writ Petitioner by filing an additional affidavit, pursuant to the order dated 11.8.2005, has made a categorical statement to the effect that since there was a dispute regarding the apportionment of the award between him and two other persons, the matter was referred by L.A. Collector to the learned L.A. Judge under Section 30 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as Misc. (L.A.) 4 of 98 in the Court of learned L.A. Judge and in the said proceeding the Petitioner received a notice dated 30.12.1998 on 19.1.19999. The said proceeding under Section 30 was disposed of by the learned L.A. Judge on 1.4.1998. (L.A.) 4 of 98 in the Court of learned L.A. Judge and in the said proceeding the Petitioner received a notice dated 30.12.1998 on 19.1.19999. The said proceeding under Section 30 was disposed of by the learned L.A. Judge on 1.4.1998. Therefore, it is evident that the writ Petitioner was at least aware of the award dated 9.5.1998 passed by the L.A. Collector on 19.1.1999 and even if 19.1.1999 is taken as the date of knowledge of passing of the award by the Collector, the application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act ought to have been filed within six weeks from that date, even assuming that no notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was served on the Petitioner. But the Petitioner has admittedly filed the application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act on 9.4.1999 i.e. much beyond the period of six weeks as stipulated in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L.A. Act. 6. Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L.A. Act provides that the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act has to be filed by any person interested, who has not accepted the award, either within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act or with in six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. In the instant case even if no notice under Section 12(2) has been served on the Petitioner, the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act has to be filed within six months from the date of the award passed by the L.A. Collector. In the instant case, as observed above, the L.A. Collector passed the award on 9.5.1998 and, therefore, the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act has to be filed 8.11.1998, in the case notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act has not been served upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner's case being that no notice was served as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, he was required to file the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act within aforesaid dated i.e. 8.11.1999. But in the instant case, the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act admittedly filed on 9.4.1998. The Petitioner's case being that no notice was served as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, he was required to file the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act within aforesaid dated i.e. 8.11.1999. But in the instant case, the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act admittedly filed on 9.4.1998. Hence, the application filed by the Petitioner is beyond the time prescribed by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The Apex Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal and other reported in (1996) 9 SCC 414 as well as in Poshety and other v. State of A.P. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 213 has held that the Collector has no power to condone the delay, as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable and failure on the part of any interested person to file an application within the time allowed by Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L.A. Act shall put an end to the right of the claimant to seek reference. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.