SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. DATTATRAYA NAGESH WADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the special land acquisition officer, hidkal dam project, hidkal, is a glaring example as to how even when no application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and the award of the land acquisition officer have become final, the claimants manage to get references on applications made after long lapse of time with the connivance of land acquisition officers and how on such lime barred reference applications, awards are being passed overlooking long lapse of time after which references were received, which on the face of it disclose that the reference applications were barred by time.

(2.) brief facts of the case, are these: 8 acres 3 guntas of land in sy. No. 66 of majli village of hukeri taluk, was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-5-1963. After the final notification, the land acquisition officer made an award on 8-3-1968. He awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000-00 per acre. A reference under Section 18 of the act for enhancement of compensation, was received in the court of the civil judge, chikodi, after about 14 years, on 5-4-1982. The said application was registered as la.c No. 313 of 1982, in the court of the civil judge, chikodi. Before the civil judge's court, an objection was filed to the reference and one of the objection was that the reference application was lime barred and an issue to that effect was also framed by the learned civil judge. The learned judge negatived the objection of the appellant and proceeded to make an award, awarding a compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000-00 per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is presented. The.third ground raised in the appeal memorandum was that the learned civil judge ought to have dismissed the reference filed by the respondent on the ground that it was barred by time.

(3.) this matter was taken up for hearing on 5-2-1991.on the said date, the learned government advocate, elaborating the ground that the application was time barred, requested us to permit to raise the following two specific additional grounds: