ZALA ARJUNSINH BHOJAJI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Principle District Judge, Mehsana in Misc. Civil Application No.93 of 2010 rejecting the petitioners' application calling for the reference made by the petitioners, which was registered on 15.07.1998 on the file of the Land Acquisition Officer. For about 10 years of its registration, it was not forwarded to the Competent Court for decision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short). On pursuing the matter by the petitioners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by its order dated 21.08.2008 referred the said cases to the Competent Court. However, the Deputy Registrar of the Civil Branch, District Court, Mehsana by letter dated 06.04.2009, sent back the said cases to the respondent with an observation that the reference having been made after 10 or 11 years was not within the period of limitation. The petitioners, therefore, moved above Misc. Civil Application on 22.07.2010 in the Court of the learned Principle District Judge, Mehsana praying to call for the Land Reference Cases from the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Principle District Judge, while relying upon the decision in The Additional Special Land Acqusition Officer, Bangalore Vs. Thakoredas, Major and others (AIR 1994 SC 2227), came to the conclusion that in view of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the reference having not been made within a period of 90 days by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the application for such reference could have been made within next three years by the petitioners and that not having been done, the Misc. Civil Application was not maintainable. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court.

(2.) ON notice being issued, the respondent has filed an affidavitinreply opposing the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to Section 18 of the Act, submitted that what all the petitioners were required to do was to file the reference under Section 18 of the Act within the prescribed period; which they did, but the respondentSpecial Land Acquisition Officer failed to forward the reference to the Competent Court.

(3.) VEHEMENTLY opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court was justified in returning the application moved by the petitioners for want of specific provisions enabling the applicant to move the District Court. In its submissions, the District Court had, after taking into account the case of The Additional Special Land Acqusition Officer, Bangalore Vs. Thakoredas, Major and others (supra), reached to the above conclusion, and therefore, this Court may not interfere.