Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 258 (MP)

Dammu v. Collector

2014-03-03

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
ORDER 1. I.A. No.4734/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing this revision, has been filed by the applicants. It is contended that the order passed in the note-sheet, though was approved by the Collector, was never communicated to the applicants within time and they were not aware whether their application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'Act') was properly decided or not and on account of this reason, they could not approach this Court by way of filing this revision. 2. Though the notices of the said I.A. has been issued to the respondents, yet no response whatsoever has been filed by them. 3. Considering the aforesaid, I.A. stands allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that when the award was passed on 9.4.2006 by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Betul, the said fact was never brought to the notice of the beneficiaries like applicants herein. They were not aware that their land has been acquired as they were not given any notice of their appearance. Only when the notice was issued to them, they were asked to receive the cheque of the award amount and nothing else. The moment they came to know about passing of the award, they moved an application under section 18 of the Act, which ought to have been decided by the Collector as under the provisions of the Act, such an application is to be considered only and only by the Collector and not by any other authority. This being so, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not required to look into the application of the applicants, the same was required to be referred to the Collector. However, purportedly exercising the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, though the Sub-Divisional Officer was not required to pass any order on the application of the applicants, the impugned order was passed. Approval of the same was obtained from the Collector and application of the applicants was rejected saying that it was barred by limitation. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Approval of the same was obtained from the Collector and application of the applicants was rejected saying that it was barred by limitation. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the order on an application under section 18 of the Act is required to be passed by the Collector after application of his mind. 6. The submissions of learned counsel for the parties are considered. This Court has dealt with such a situation in the case of Kashi Bai and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2012(II) MPWN 108 = 2012(2) MPLJ 418 , and has categorically held that a reference is to be made by the Collector and he is required to examine the claim made in the application. The limitation is also required to be adjudged by the Collector himself. The period, which is allowed under the Act itself for making of such an application for making reference, is to be started from the date of knowledge of the award or from the date when the award is communicated to the concerned. The provisions of section 18 of the Act read thus : “18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every such application 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.” 7. A perusal of this provision will make it clear that it was the duty on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to inform the applicants about the award passed in their case. Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the award was ever communicated to the concerned. The order impugned also do not disclose that the notices as required under the Act aforesaid were issued and served on the applicants. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the application for reference was not made within time. That apart, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not the competent authority to decide such an application of the applicants, as he was not required to act as Collector. It was the duty on the part of the Collector to decide such an application of the applicants strictly in terms of the provisions of section 18 of the Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.9.2009 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Betul with a direction to examine whether the applicants were ever served with the notices of the land acquisition proceedings under section 12 of the Act and they have taken part in the proceedings or not and then to make reference to the civil Court to adjudicate the quantum of award ascertained by the Land Acquisition Officer. Let it be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 9. The revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.