BHARAT CHAND DIWALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 5-7-1978 of the Add). District Judge, Delhi, whereby he held that reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was barred by limitation, and thus refusing to proceed with reference.

(2.) . The petitioner is stated to be the owner of 24 Bighas 10 Biswas of agricultural land in village Kolokari, Delhi A notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioner and other lands was issued on 13-11-1959, and a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26/27-7-1961. A award was given on 16-2-1962. It has been the contention of the petitioner that no notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to him and he was also not informed of the making of the award and no notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act was ever served upon him.

(3.) . It appears after making the award, the learned Collector made a reference under Section 30 of the Act. This section provides that when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the court. This reference was decided on 8-7-1974 and in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner says that he became aware of the award on 14-7-1976 and on 4-11-1976 he filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector requiring that reference be made to the court for determinatn of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. The reference was accordingly made. When the matter came up before the learned Addl. District Judge, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 raised an objection that it was made beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Sec. 18 of the Act. The respondent Union of India had not raised any such objection. However, getting a cue from the objection of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the UOI also raised an objection to the validity of the reference being barred by limitation. This objection of the respondents prevailed and by the impugned order the learned Addl. District Judge refused to proceed with the reference.