Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1191 (MP)

Amar Singh (Dead) v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-11-19

ALOK ARADHE

body2015
ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. J. S. Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Sameer Jain, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Mr. Anil Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-industrial Infrastructure Development Authority. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. Since singular question, namely, whether provisions of 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arises for consideration in this batch of civil revisions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts from Civil Revision No. 41/2009 are being referred to, which are stated infra. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of revision, briefly stated, are that the land of the applicant was acquired for Industrial Infrastructure Development Authority and an award was passed on 12-1-1990. Thereafter, the applicant in Civil Revision No. 41/2009 filed an application for reference under section 18 dated 26-12-2001 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Collector vide order dated 17-12-2008 on the ground that same is barred by limitation. 3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to M. P. Amendment in section 18 of Land Acquisition Act and has submitted that order passed by the Collector on an application under section 18 shall be subject to revision by the High Court as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. It is further submitted that a legal fiction has been created and the Collector has been treated to be Court while exercising powers under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1963 in view of section 29 of the Imitation Act. In support of aforesaid submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Sagir v. Bharat Heavy Electricals and others, 2004(2) MPLJ (F.B.) 359. In support of aforesaid submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Sagir v. Bharat Heavy Electricals and others, 2004(2) MPLJ (F.B.) 359. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State Legislature reads as under : - "(3) Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Thus, it is evident that Collector has been made the Court for the limited purpose of enabling the aggrieved party to file a revision before the High Court. 5. It is well settled in law that legal fiction should not be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, reference may be made to Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh 13th Edition Page No. 388 wherein it has been observed as under : - "But although full effect must be given to the legal fiction, as already noticed, it should not be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. S.R. Das, J. referred to this principle in his opinion in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory and as acting Chief Justice re-affirmed the same in his leading judgment in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar. In the latter case the learned Chief Justice stated that "legal fictions " are created only for some definite purpose ", and he proceeded to add that "a legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. " 6. Ltd. v. State of Bihar. In the latter case the learned Chief Justice stated that "legal fictions " are created only for some definite purpose ", and he proceeded to add that "a legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. " 6. In view of aforesaid, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act would apply in respect of an order passed in the proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, does not commend to me as the legal fiction has been created only for a limited purpose to make the Collector the Court only for a limited purpose so that an aggrieved party may file a revision before the High Court. Besides this, the issue involved in this bunch of revisions is squarely covered by a decision of Apex Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal, (1996) 9 SCC 414 wherein the Supreme Court while considering pari materia provision like section 18(3) of Land Acquisition Act has held that provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act would not apply to the proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the revisions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed.