GOVINDACHARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to make a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). After the lands of the petitioners had been acquired and Award had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners had not filed the application under Sec.18 of the Act for making a reference within the stipulated period. However, a proceeding under Sec.30 of the Act for deciding about the entitlement of the Award was pending. It is stated that after the disposal of such proceeding under Sec.30 of the Act, an application was filed for making a reference. Since no reply was received, the petitioners filed several applications thereafter and ultimately issued Advocate's notice. The departmental authorities refused to refer the matter under Sec.18 of the Act stating that the application for making a reference had not been filed within the stipulated period and, as such, no reference could be made. This is being challenged in the present writ petitions.

(2.) SEC.18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: "18. Reference to Court:

(3.) EVEN if the battle is lost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not prepared to concede the war. He has submitted that application subsequently filed by the petitioners could have been treated as an application under Sec.28-A and the matter could have been dealt with by the Collector in accordance with law.