BUDHRAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Applicant Budhram under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.09.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.79/2005, whereby the Applicant's Reference Petition preferred under Section 18 (2) of the Act of 1894 has been rejected holding to be barred by time. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Shri H.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Applicant submits that the judgment under appeal as passed by the Reference Court holding the Reference Petition to be barred by time without taking note of the provision prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 1894 is apparently contrary to law. It is contended by him that immediately after passing of the Award dated 26.08.2003 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, in Land Acquisition Case No.102/A-82/2002-03, an objection was made by the Applicant on 31.10.2003 before the said Authority and again a similar prayer was made on 31.12.2003. However, no action was taken on those applications, therefore, the Applicant moved another application by referring the provision of Section 18 (2) of the Act of 1894 on 08.02.2005. It is contended further that his application was rejected by the Court below without considering the earlier application as a Reference Petition and thereby erred in holding to be barred by time. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Union of India vs. Khazan Singh and M.T.Khan and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others reported respectively in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 583 and (2004) 2 SCC 267.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment as passed by the Reference Court.