SAMPANNA GURUSIDDAPPA MARIBASANNAVAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions arise from the order dated 7-6-1994 passed by the additional civil judge, chikkodi, (n. b. kulkarni) rejecting the revision petitioners application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the land acquisition act on the ground that application under Section 18 (1) of the act had not been moved within 90 days and so the respondent i. e. , the special land acquisition officer had no jurisdiction to refer the original application. As such the application under Section 18 (3) (b) was not maintainable.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that 90 days period from the date of communication of award under Section 12 (2) is available to the person aggrieved, to move the application under Section 18 (1) of the act. That in the present case, notice of award dated 18-6-1988 had been served under Section 12 (2) on the petitioners on 26-9-1989. The application under Section 18 (1) was moved on 21-12-1989. Thereafter, the deputy commissioner i. e. , the competent authority did not refer the matter and allowed 90 days time to expire. It has been contended that from the date of expiry of that period of 90 days under Section 18 (3) (a), the application dated 18-7-1992 moved under Section 18 (3) (b) was well within time. The learned counsel contended that the learned civil judge illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 18 on an erroneous view of law to the effect that under Section 18 (1) application was barred by time as well as in holding that under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as application was not made within time, there was no obligation as well as there was no jurisdiction in the land acquisition officer to refer the case or to make reference.

(3.) THE contentions have been opposed on behalf of the respondents by the learned government pleader.