MAHALEKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this case is as to whether an application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act received by the Collector after the prescribed period of limitation can still be regarded as one made within the prescribed period of limitation, if the said application was presented to the post office for being dispatched to the Collector by registered post within the prescribed time. Section 18 reads:

(2.) THE proviso to Section 18 which provides for making of such an application to the Collector does not say that the application may be sent by post. It says that if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, the application should be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. In other cases the application shall be made to the Collector within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, Sub -section, (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. The statutory provision makes it clear that the application must be made to the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation. 'Making' in the context means submitting or presenting. Hence the question of the aggrieved person presenting the application to the post office within the prescribed time for being dispatched by registered post to the Collector does not arise. What is of the essence of the matter is that the application should have been received by the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation. Receipt by the post office for transmission to the Collector is not receipt by the Collector. It is only when such an application is received by the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation that the application can be regarded as having been made to the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Single Judge following the decision of this Court in, 1984 K.L.T. 837 between State of Kerala and C.R. Viran has held that the application of the Appellant having been received by the Collector after the prescribed period of limitation, the same could not be entertained by the Collector. Though the Appellant relied upon the decision of a learned. Single Judge of this Court reported in, 1982 K.L.T. 466 between Achuthan and State of Kerala in support of her case, the learned Single Judge has preferred to follow the subsequent Division Bench ruling on the ground that the decision of the larger bench is binding on him. We had occasion to examine a similar question in W.A. No. 351/89. That was a case of an appeal having been submitted to the post office within the prescribed period of limitation but received by the appellate authority after the prescribed period of limitation. Dealing with the question, this is what this Court has observed following an earlier Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in, 1978 K.L.T. 254 between Lalithamma and Manager', Aravukad High School and Ors.:

(3.) THE above principle laid in connection with presentation of appeal is equally applicable to making of applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus it is clear the question involved in this case stands concluded by the above decisions of the Division Bench and that the principle laid down by the Single Judge in, 1982 K.L.T. 466 is no more good law. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the Appellant's application sent by post not having been received by the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation, the said application cannot be regarded as having been made to the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the application of the Appellant is barred by limitation is therefore right and does not call for interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.