DAHIBEN AND OTHERS Vs. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO. 1), AHMEDABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this application for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned order of dismissing the petitioners' reference application and to direct the respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the District Court, Nadiad, under the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The lands situated at village Kamla, District Kheda came to be acquired under the provisions contained in the Act. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were published on 13-11-1978 and 20-11-1981 respectively in accordance with law. The award came to be passed on 20th September, 1986. It appears that the case of the petitioner is that they moved an application under Section 18 before the Land Acquisition Officer for making a reference to the District Court.

(2.) It appears that vide Annexure 'A' dated 2-3-1988 the petitioner No. 3 Shamjibhai Laljibhai was informed by the Land Acquisition Officer, that he should remain present before the Land Acquisition Officer on 17-3-88 to show cause as to why application should not be rejected as the same is presented after the prescribed period. The petitioner No. 3 was also informed that in absence, ex parte order will be passed. The petitioners have annexed orders passed by respondent in the case of Nathubhai Ishwarbhai Patel, power of attorney holder of Nitin kumar and in the case of Shailleshkumar Natubhai Patel. These two persons are not the petitioners before the Court. So far as other petitioners (except No. 8) are concerned, there is nothing on record to show that petitioners submitted an application for reference and the application has been rejected. In the petition there is a reference to Annexure-C dated 22-2-89 in the matter of one Arjunbhai Jeebhai etc. etc. dated 8-12-87, for survey Nos. 535/3, 529, 530, 56/1, 531, 532/1, 534, 545/1, 562/2 of village Kamala. There is nothing in the Annexure-C to show that the said order is passed at the instance of the petitioners except one Arjunbhai Jibhai who is petitioner No. 8. Vide Annexure-C the application under Section 18 has been rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioners in this petition have referred the judgment delivered by this Court in Spl. C.A. No. 3321/86 (vide Annexure-D). It is suggested that Annexure-C is vague and contrary to the decision rendered by this Court. The said Special Civil Application arises out of proceedings under the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. The lands were sought to be acquired at Sabarkantha and the Court considered the question and held that unless and until a copy of the award is supplied, limitation for making a reference under Section 18 would not begin to run. In that case copy of the award was not served on the petitioner. On behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, no ground was urged to contest the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, a reply is filed by the officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, GIDC No. 1, Ahmedabad. It is categorically stated that the petitioner were personally present at the time of declaration of the award. The amount of compensation as per award was offered to the petitioners, but they refused to accept the same. It is specifically stated in reply to para 18 of the petition that the petitioners were present at the time of making award, and at that point of time they were made to understand the award as a whole and, therefore, it was not necessary to serve a copy of the award or its contents. Thus, the persons who were entitled to receive the compensation namely the petitioners were informed about the contents of the award by the officer concerned. Section 12 of the Act is relevant for the purpose and it reads as under :