Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1426 (MP)

Bhariwarlal v. State of M. P.

2008-12-10

VINEY MITTAL

body2008
ORDER (Oral) 1. Shri Shailendra Mukati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Patwa, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents, on the basis of advance copy. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is being taken up for final disposal. 2. The land of the petitioner was acquired and an award dated March 27,2003, Annexure P-1, was rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner claims that he came to know of the aforesaid award on April 23, 2004, and as such, immediately on coming to know of the said award, and having a feeling that the compensation amount had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer on lower side, he sent a petition to the Acquisition Authority for enhancement of the compensation. The aforesaid petition was labelled as a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of the said notice has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. 3. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 4610/2008. The grievance raised was that although the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was pending before the Acquisition Authority, but no final decision had been taken in the matter, in as much as the matter had not been referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. This Court vide order dated August 20, 2008 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with direction to the Competent Authority to take a final decision on the aforesaid application, if still pending. 5. Now an order dated September 13, 2008 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Petlawad, District Jhabua, whereby the petitioner has been informed that since the aforesaid application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioner was, in fact, a notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and at no stage, the petitioner had ever filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, his claim could not be referred. 6. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that although the petition filed by the petitioner on June 17,2004 was labelled as a notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, but in fact, it is apparent that a grievance had been raised by the petitioner with regard to the inadequancy of the compensation. The petitioner had requested that compensation be enhanced. 7. It is well settled that mere wrong labelling of a petition by a person, would not take away the jurisdiction of the authority before whom such a petition is filed. In such circumstances, the Competent Authority is required to look into the real intention of the claimant-applicant. 8. At this stage, it may also be noticed that in the impugned order, Annexure P-6, it has been noticed that the award had been pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 27, 2003 and even the aforesaid petition had been filed by the petitioner on June 17, 2004, and therefore, the same was beyond the period of limitation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amount of compensation, as per the award dated March 27, 2003 was received by the petitioner on April 23, 2004, and petitioner acquired the knowledge of the award then, and, therefore, as per the law laid down by the apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 , Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another and 2005 AIR SCW 4609, Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another, the period of limitation for making an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be computed from the date of the knowledge of the award and not from the date of the award itself. 9. I find that the aforesaid explanation rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly justified, and consequently, I find that not only the petition filed by the petitioner on June 17, 2004 was liable to be treated as a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but also the said petition was clearly within limitation. 10. 10. Consequently, Competent Authority is now directed to refer the matter to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, within a period of four weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.