ARUMUGHAM Vs. T L RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the lands of the first respondent herein. Before over the sale transaction is completed, the lands were acquired by the Government. THE petitioner on coming to know of the acquisition proceeding, filed claim petition before the second respondent. THE second respondent, after passing the award, referred the matter to Sub-Court, Chengleput, under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) IN the said L. A. O. P. proceedings the petitioner was set ex parte on 11. 8. 1994 and on the same date an ex parte order was passed by the lower court, stating that the first respondent in these revisions is entitled to the entire compensation. IN all the L. A. O. Ps. the petitioner filed applications for setting aside the ex parte decree and since there was delay in filing the applications, he also filed applications for condoning the delay of 170 days in filing the petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitions for condonation of delay had been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation act. The lower court, before numbering the petitions, at the S. R. stage, had rejected all the applications for condonation of delay on the ground that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act had no application to Land Acquisition proceedings and as such the applications filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay are not maintainable in the eye of law. The present revisions have been filed against the orders of the lower court, rejecting the applications filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) THE another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is reported in Bhikhubhai v. State, A. I. R. 1989 Guj. 8, in which the Division Bench relying upon the earlier judgment of the same court held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the Land Acquisition proceeding in seeking for a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer. THE learned Judges have held in the following terms: "in this connection, Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, brought to our notice a decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Vasta v. State of Gujarat, 1985 Guj L. R. 199: A. I. R. 1995 guj. 115, wherein it has been specifically held that Limitation Act and provisions contained in Secs. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of this specific observation made by the Bench of our High Court, there cannot be any difficulty for the respondent 2 to condone the delay and refer the matter to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. "