RANOJI RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dated 30.10.2003 at Annexure-B, the application filed by the Petitioner U/S. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short) is dismissed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the same is filed beyond 90 days from the date of award dated 5.9.2001 passed in LAC. Nos.4/91, 13/91, 14/91, 30/91.

(2.) L.A.C. Nos.4/91, 13/91, 14/91, 30/91 were disposed of by the Jurisdictional Civil Court and the award was passed in favour of the claimants therein on 5.9.2001. After obtaining the certified copy of the award passed in the said L.A.C. cases, the petitioner herein who was similarly placed as that of the claimants in the aforesaid L.A.C. cases filed application U/S. 28-A of the Act on 26.6.2002 claiming similar compensation as ordered in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Cases. It is not in dispute that said application is filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 83 days of the time of limitation prescribed under the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act being a beneficial provision, the Land Acquisition Officer should have accepted the application filed U/S. 28A of the Act, by condoning delay. The said submission is opposed by Learned Government Pleader. Thus the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: "Whether delay in filing an application U/S. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act can be condoned or not?" To determine the aforesaid question it is just and necessary to extract the relevant portion of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act.

(3.) The bare reading; of the aforesaid proviso makes it clear that the prescribed time limit for filing an application U/S. 28-A of the Act is three months from the date of award of the Court. It is further clarified in the said proviso that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. Thus, the aforesaid provision casts legal obligation on the claimant to enforce his claim within the period available for it. It is based on a public policy that a right should not be allowed to remain a right indefinitely to be used against another at the will and pleasure of the holder of such right by approaching the Court whenever he chooses to do so. When the right of the party stands extinguished on the expiry of 90 days from the date of award, after excluding the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the award, there is no question of reviving the right of the claimant by permitting him to file application for reference at his sweet will and pleasure, whatever be the inducement or occasion for doing so. In this connection, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs Marri Venkaiah and Others (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2949) wherein it is held as under: