RAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain lands including the land belonging to the petitioner in Mauza Tihar were acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4 was issued on February, 13, 1967. Notification under Section 6 was issued on Dec., 17, 1964. After the usual proceedings contemplated by Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, Collector made Award No. 1916 dated August, 10, 1966 and forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. the Collector of the District for information and filing of the award. This was done on December, 5, 1966. After the award had been filed, further action was to be taken on it.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the time when the award was announced under Section 12 (1). Accordingly, it became incumbent upon the Collector to give notice of the award to persons interested including the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act. It is said on behalf of the respondents that this notice was sent to the petitioner's address by registered acknowledgement due post, the notice being issued under the signatures of the Collector. It is admitted that the notice was not served personally on the petitioner but someone else had signed the acknowledgement due receipt on his behalf. The petitioner contends that he never received any such notice and got knowledge of the award having been made on November 10, 1967. He, therefore, immediately proceeded to move the Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act and application in this behalf dated November 14, 1967 was filed before the Collector on November 15, 1967. The application was rejected by the Collector, admittedly, without affording any hearing to the petitioner, by a cryptic order saying that the application was time - barred. Another application moved later on by the petitioner for review of this order was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the then incumbent of that post could not review his predecessor's order by which the application had been dismissed as being time-barred.

(3.) The short question that first arises for decision on the facts as set out above is whether the notice sent by registered A.D. post to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of Section 12 (2) was validly issued. If it was validly issued, then a question may arise as to whether the service as effected was valid service.