PAUL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS filed application under S. 28a of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of Ext. P2 judgment in L. A. R. No. 180 of 1984 dated 28. 3. 1987. S. 28a application was filed on 20. 7. 1992 which was received in the office on 25. 7. 1992. The application was filed after five years. S. 28a clearly indicates that a person whose land is acquired under a common notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act but who failed to apply under S. 18 is eligible to make a written application within three months from the date of award of the reference court. Only the time taken for applying for certified copy can be excluded as per proviso to S. 28a. This period of limitation cannot be bye-passed by saying that petitioner came to know about the award of the reference court only later. In this connection, I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tola Ram v. State of U. P. (TT 1997 (6) SC 231 ). It was held by the Apex Court as follows "the proviso to S. 28a gives a right to the persons to obtain the certified copy of the award and decree and the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award and the decree shall be excluded in computing the period of three months. In view of the express language, the question of knowledge does not arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the limitation of three months begins to start from the date of the knowledge is clearly unsustainable and cannot be accepted. &quot

(2.) IN this case petition under S. 28a was filed after five years of the date of the award of the reference court and even if time taken for certified copy is excluded it is time barred. Therefore, petitioners' application under S. 28a was rightly rejected by Ext. P4. Hence, the Original petition is dismissed. . .