HARIKUMAR Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, as per Ext. P6 order. The ground stated therein is that the application was filed after expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Exhibit P6 order shows that the notice under Section 12(2) was received by the petitioner on 24.6.2005, but the application was filed only on 7.9.2005, after the period of six weeks prescribed under the Act.

(2.) The petitioner herein seeks to quash the said order since the order is illegal and is not consistent with the provision contained in Section 18 of the Act. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was received by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act as stated in Exhibit P6 and therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground stated in Exhibit P6 is illegal. Learned Government Pleader argued that notice is deemed to have been received by the petitioner, as per Section 45 of the Act, and the acknowledgment and the notice are available in the records.

(3.) The records show that a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was sent to petitioner. On overleaf of the notice, there is an endorsement showing that the notice was received on behalf of petitioner by the father, on 24.6.2005. Therefore, it is submitted that the notice has to be deemed to have been served on the petitioner on 24.6.2005, and there was proper service of notice in accordance with Section 45 of the Act.