PATEL MAVJI JODHA DIHORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Mr. M. H. Rathod waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts of the case, at the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is ordered to be heard today. Short question is - Does the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 require that the application requesting the Collector to make reference may be signed by the 'person interested' himself, and if it is signed by his duly authorised Advocate/agent, would it not be maintainable ?

(2.) . The petitioner is an agriculturist. He owns land in village Alang, Taluka Talaja, District Bhavnagar. His land admeasuring 2 Hecters 84 Aries and 29 Sq. Meters was sought to be acquired at the instance of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for establishing industrial estate at village Alang. After the publication of notification under Sec. 4 and declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the land acquisition officer followed the necessary procedure. Ultimately a common award under Sec. 11(1) of the Act was passed on 12/09/1990. As disclosed from the record of the petition, the petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs. 4,70,653.00 (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand six hundred and fifty-three only).

(3.) . The petitioner has accepted the said amount of compensation under protest on 13/02/1992. Within the prescribed time limit, the petitioner submitted an application under Sec. 18 of the Act under the signature of his Advocate requesting the Collector to make reference to the District Court. The Collector issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the application should not be rejected on the ground that the application was not signed by the person interested, i.e., the petitioner himself and that as no undertaking was filed in the prescribed form for payment of Court-fees. The petitioner replied to the same. It is an admitted position that as far as the filing of undertaking was concerned, the said requirement was fulfilled.