PRADEEP NARAYANAN Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner's lands were acquired for the second respondent. An award was passed by the Collector. A reference was made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". The reference was answered without the junction of the second respondent, the requisitioning authority. Armed with the decisions of the Apex Court in that regard, the second respondent had that award set aside by this Court on a count of non hearing; of the requisitioning authority. On remit, the claimant gave evidence. He was cross examined. The first three sentence in the cross examination were answers to suggestions as to whether the claimant was present in the proceedings leading to the award and whether he had tendered documents. He answered in the affirmative. This reply of the claimant to the cross examination formed the basis of an argument before the Reference Court, without any written plea on record in that behalf, that the reference application was barred by limitation. That argument on behalf of requisitioning authority found favour with the Court below and it was held that the reference is barred by limitation.

(2.) Having regard to the fact that this writ petition stood admitted, the lower court records were called for and the original files, including the award of the Collector are before me.

(3.) The award is signed by the Officer exercising the powers of the Collector, namely the Special Tahsildar (LA), Alappuzha. He signed it on 02/06/1999. The reference application was filed on 16/07/1999 under S.18(1) of the Act. Taking the date of award as 02/06/1999 and on the assumption that the claimant was present before the Collector (the Officer who made the award) on 02/06/1999, the Reference Court has now held that the application for reference was filed beyond the period prescribed in proviso (a) occurring in S.18 of the Act. However, a perusal of the original files which have been brought down from the Court below would show that the award, signed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Alappuzha on 02/06/1999 is thereafter approved by the District Collector only on 05/07/1999. This, obviously, means that the award is one which will fall within the first proviso to S.11(1) which requires that no award shall be made without the previous approval of the appropriate Officer as authorised by the Government. The award signed by the Special Tahsildar on 02/06/1999 would be only a hollow document, at least, to tie down the claimant in relation to the period of limitation provided by proviso (a) in S.18 of the Act. Thus, the date of award has to be treated as 05/07/1999, the date on which the Collector approved the award. It is nobody's case that the claimant was before the Collector when the award was signed. Even if it were, it makes no difference since the reference application was filed on 16/07/1999 well within time. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the application of the petitioner for reference was not barred by limitation.