Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 871 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal Garg v. State

2011-05-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Land Acquisition Officer dated 24.4.2001 by which his application for making a reference to the civil court u/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short-`the Act') for enhancement of the compensation was dismissed. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case is that the land bearing khasra no.459/461 situated in village Kotara, measuring 2 bighas and 10 biswas was acquired by the State and an award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer/OSD, UIT, Ajmer on 7.9.2000. Compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha was awarded to the petitioner along with other compensation. Possession of the acquired land was also taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.9.2000. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner filed an application directly before the civil court u/s.18 of the Act on 20.10.2000 praying for enhancement of the compensation. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ajmer vide his order dated 24.2.2001 passed an order for returning of the original application to the petitioner with the direction to present the same before the appropriate authority. Original application along with the connected papers were returned to the petitioner on 14.3.2001 and within three days thereof i.e. on 16.3.2001. Petitioner filed application before the Land Acquisition Officer, which has been rejected by him vide the impugned order. 3. Shri Digvijay Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 stipulates limitation of six weeks from the date of award, for filing an application envisaged in that provision, but object of Section 18, supra is to provide a remedy to the person interested in the land to claim enhancement of the compensation. Petitioner under bona fide, though erroneous, legal advice directly made an application before the civil court whereas such application was required to be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer first. However, the application that was made by the petitioner on 20.10.2000 before the civil court was actually filed within a period of six weeks as provided by first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. This fact is not denied even by respondents. He further submitted that when original papers along with the application were returned to the petitioner on 14.3.2001 by the civil court, petitioner filed such application before the Land Acquisition Officer within three days on 16.3.2001. This fact is not denied even by respondents. He further submitted that when original papers along with the application were returned to the petitioner on 14.3.2001 by the civil court, petitioner filed such application before the Land Acquisition Officer within three days on 16.3.2001. This shows his diligence. The aforesaid provision has to be construed in the light of the facts of the present case. Learned counsel in support of his argument cited judgement of this Court in Natholi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2574/1994 decided on 17.8.1994 and argued that the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to make a reference and he could not reject the application even on the basis of limitation, which question could be examined by the civil court. 4. Per contra, Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the statutory period of limitation in first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 is of six weeks from the date of award for filing application before the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector. He denied that Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation. The limitation could not be condoned as the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to make such condonation as per the provisions of Section 18. He therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 6. Although, it is true that first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides for limitation of six weeks for filing application under sub-section (1) thereof for raising objection as to measurement of land, amount of compensation, the persons whom it is payable or apportionment of compensation among persons interested, but at the same time, it is also equally true that reference ultimately has to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court. Petitioner in the present case actually filed an application for reference before the civil court on 20.10.2000 within 24 days of passing of award. It cannot therefore be said that no application was made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of the award within the prescribed period of limitation. He did not make such application before the Land Acquisition Officer, but filed the same directly before the civil court concerned. It cannot therefore be said that no application was made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of the award within the prescribed period of limitation. He did not make such application before the Land Acquisition Officer, but filed the same directly before the civil court concerned. Petitioner has sought to explain this lapse by citing the reason of erroneous legal advice on which he acted bonafidely and filed application directly before the civil court. But then, he thereafter seems to have acted with due diligence, which is evident from the fact that when the papers were returned to him by the civil court on 14.3.2001, he filed application before the Land Acquisition Officer within three days thereof on 16.3.2001. 7. Although, this Court is not inclined to uphold the argument that the Land Acquisition Officer cannot go into the question of limitation and cannot refuse to make a reference despite the claim being barred by limitation. In view however of the peculiarities attached to this matter that the application seeking enhancement of compensation stood actually filed before the Court to whom the reference was meant to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer where ultimately such application was made by the petitioner immediately after returning all papers to him by that Court, this Court is of the considered view that objection of limitation could not come in the way of adjudication of application on merits because the requirement of making application within a period of limitation stood satisfied, albeit by filing of such application before the civil court though the application with original papers on being returned from civil court may have been received by the Land Acquisition Officer with slight delay. 8. In view of the discussion above, this writ petition deserves to be succeed, which is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.4.2001 is set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference to the civil court u/s.18 of the Act and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of presentation of copy of this order.