KALIDAS N MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition (III), Ahmedabad, by which an application of the petitioner to make reference came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

(2.) Few relevant facts which are necessary may now be stated. It is the case of the petitioner that he is resident of village Metoda, Lodhika Taluka, District Rajkot. Some land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A notification under S.4 was published on November 10, 1988 whereas notification under S.6 was published on August 31, 1989. The petitioner submitted his claim. According to him, he was entitled to get atleast Rs. 120.00 per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award which was not acceptable to the petitioner. He, therefore, made an application to refer the matter to a competent Court under S.18 of the Act. When the said application was placed before respondent No. 3 an objection was raised that the application was not submitted within the stipulated period of six weeks and hence, it was barred by limitation. A notice was, therefore, issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his application should not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner submitted his reply stating therein that he was not aware of the award. It was stated that in pursuance of intimation given by respondent No. 3 on September 6, 1991, the petitioner remained present in the office of respondent No. 3 on September 18, 1991 at the office of Metoda Gram Panchayat. On that day, award was not declared and he was told that it would be declared later on. On the next day, i.e., on September 19, 1991, when he remained present, he was informed that the award was already passed and the petitioner was awarded Rs. 8.00 per sq. mtr. The petitioner immediately applied for certified copy of the award which was received by him on February 26, 1992 and he made an application in March, 1992 but was rejected on the ground of limitation.

(3.) In the impugned order, dated October 14, 1992, it was mentioned that the award was declared on September 19, 1991 whereas the application was made in March, 1992 which was received by the office of respondent No. 3 on March 31, 1992. A notice was, therefore, issued and on being satisfied that it was barred by limitation, the application was rejected. It was also stated that when the award was declared at the Gram Panchayat Office of Metoda, the petitioner was present and he was accordingly informed about the declaration of award as also about the legal provision as to whether the petitioner wanted to get the matter referred to a competent Court. Since nothing was done within the stipulated period, the prayer to refer the matter under S.18(2) of the Act could not be granted and was rejected.