MUSEBHAI JIVANBHAI JIVANI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (per M.R.Calla, J.) Heard learned Counsel.

(2.) Through these nine Special Civil Applications, the respective petitioners in each of these petitions have challenged the order dated 31/12/1998 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Scheme), Unit No.19, Surendranagar, whereby the applications made by the present petitioners as claimants seeking reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, have been rejected.

(3.) There is no dispute about the fact that the award was passed on 18/07/1995 and it is the case of the petitioners that they were not present before the Land Acquisition Officer on the date when the award was passed. It is the further case of the petitioners that the notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 3/12/1996 in each of these matters. These notices had been duly served in the month of December 1996 on the petitioners, but it has been submitted that in the case of Special Civil Applications Nos.1588 of 1999 and 1591 of 1999, these notices under Section 12(2) of the Act had not been served upon the petitioners. The service of the notice dated 3/12/1996 is admitted in case of all the Special Civil Applications except Special Civil Applications Nos.1588 of 1999 and 1591 of 1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in the cyclostyled copy of the affidavit of the petitioner which has been filed at page no.12 of the Special Civil Application No.1588 of 1999 which was tendered along with the application seeking the land reference, it was in fact mentioned that the notice under Section 12(2) had not been served, but in this copy which is annexed with the petition, by mistake the word, "Nathi" appears to have been omitted in the second line of second para, and it has been submitted that since the cyclostyled affidavits are prepared, the correction could not be made. While making reference to Special Civil Application No.1591 of 1991, the learned Counsel has pointed out that the copy of such cyclostyled affidavit is at page no.12 wherein the word, "nathi" has also been written by way of correction.