Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 472 (HP)

Durgu v. Collector Land Acquisition

2013-05-27

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, HP. PWD (CZ), Mandi in Case No.96/11, declining to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act). 2.It has been stated that petitioner had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act before respondent No.1 for making reference to leaned District Judge, Mandi. He also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short Limitation Act) for condonation of delay. It has been stated that no notice under Section 12 of the Act was issued, however, a cheque dated 1.6.2009 was given to the petitioner as compensation of the acquired land. The petitioner was apprised by the official of respondent No.1 on 25.6.2011 that award has already been made and entire payment has already been paid. The respondent No.1 dismissed the petition on 8.1.2013 which has been challenged in the revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that respondent No.1 has erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation. He has erred in not condoning the delay in asmuch as petitioner only on 25.6.2011 came to know that the award has been passed under the Act and immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 for making the reference alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned order. 4. In the impugned order, it has been observed that award No.19 was announced on 21.10.2008. The petitioner had received the compensation on 1.6.2009. The reference petition was filed on 1.7.2011. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned order. 4. In the impugned order, it has been observed that award No.19 was announced on 21.10.2008. The petitioner had received the compensation on 1.6.2009. The reference petition was filed on 1.7.2011. In Section 18 of the Act second proviso has been added by .H.P. Act 17 of 1986 (w.e.f. 22nd July, 1986 ) which is as follows:- “PROVIDED FURTHER THAT “Collector may entertain an application under this section after the expiry of the period of six weeks but within a period of six months, if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.” It is thus clear that it is open to the Collector to entertain an application after the expiry of period of six weeks, provided in clause (b) of sub section 2 of Section 18 but within a period of six months, if Collector is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application. Thus, there is cap of six months. 5. In State of Punjab and another vs. Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 , it has been held that the statutory operation of limitation mentioned by Section 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under Section 12(2) is received or as envisaged by Section 18(2). 6. The Supreme Court in Officer on Special duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others (1996) 9 SCC 414 has held that in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1). Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The High Court was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Collector has no power to extend time for making an application under Section 18(1) for reference to the court. 7. The High Court was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Collector has no power to extend time for making an application under Section 18(1) for reference to the court. 7. In Mahadeo Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 7 SCC 440 , the Supreme Court has observed that the application under Section 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The High Court did not commit any error in holding that the application was barred by limitation. It was not disputed that the Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference under Section 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the aforesaid section. 8.The award was announced on 21.10.2008. The petitioner received compensation amount on 1.6.2009 and moved an application before Collector for making reference to the Court on 1.7.2011. It has also been stated in the petition that petitioner came to know of the award on 25.6.2011. The Collector is not a Court and therefore, has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.The application for making reference seen from any angle was barred by limitation prescribed under second proviso to section 18 of the Act as amended in Himachal Pradesh. There is no merit in the petition. 9.In view of above, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.