RAMESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge, on 13.12.2019, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant where he had prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.1.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) (North) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Puducherry whereunder, the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act') moved by the appellant was rejected.

(2.) The learned Single Judge held that the appellant had filed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act beyond the period of six months, and he being not a purchaser from the original landowner and who had not made any attempt to get his name mutated in the Land Revenue Records, was not entitled to for a mandamus contrary to the statute. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the allegation of failure to serve notice on the appellant in the land acquisition proceedings did not invalidate the acquisition or otherwise create any further right in favour of the appellant, that stood foreclosed for the purposes of Section 18 of the 1894 Act on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein.

(3.) The Court has further found that the reliance placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2018 in W.P.No.6416 of 2015 (A.Munisamy v. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt. of U.T. of Puducherry) was not attracted on the facts of the present case and hence, this appeal by the appellant questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2019.