DHANALAKSHMI Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order, d. 29th February, 1976, the respondent rejected the petitioner's application under S.18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and refused to make a reference to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation amount payable to the petitioner in respect of her lands which had been acquired. In these proceedings the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order and issue directions to the respondent to make a reference in terms of her application to Civil Court. The short facts of the case are as stated below: An extent of 2.43 acres of wet lands in Kadappakkum village, Saidapet Taluk, belonging to the petitioner and comprised in S. Nos. 238/2 -A, 2 -B and 2 -C were acquired along with certain other lands measuring 32.23 acres in the same village for providing house sties to the Employees of the Madras Refineries etc., and the relevant award No. 4/74 for acquisition of the lands was passed on 14th October, 1974. As per the award, a compensation of Rs.2,535 per acre was awarded to the owners of the lands. Notice of the award under S.12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 30th October, 1974. The petitioner made an application on 18th December, 1974 under S.18 (1) of the Act saying that the compensation awarded for her lands was wholly inadequate and as such the Collector should make a reference to the court for determining the fair amount of compensation payable to her. This application was received by the Collector on 20th December, 1974. Thereupon, he made a reference under S.18(1) of the Act, to the Court competent to deal with the matter, viz., Subordinate Judge's Court of Chenglepattu. The reference was trade on 25th April, 1975, but the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, returned the reference on 1st July, 1975, stating that the application for reference has been made belatedly and as such the referring officer may quote the provision of law under which the reference can be taken on file. It was only then, the respondent realised that the petitioner's application had been made beyond the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice under S.12 (2) of the Act and as such the application did not satisfy proviso (b) of sub -S.(2) of S.18 of the Act. As a result of this discovery, the respondent rejected the petitioner's application as time barred and sent the impugned order on 29th February, 1976. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In her affidavit, the petitioner has stated that her husband died on 14th March, 1974, that within a month thereafter, her only son also died after being bedridden in hospital for a considerable period of time and it was in those circumstances, she could cot send her application under S.18 (1) of the Act before 18th December, 1974. She has further stated that though the application was sent on 18th December, 1974,. it cannot be considered a belated one, because, clause (B) of sub -8.(2) of S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, provides alternative periods of limitation, viz.,(i) a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from the Collector under S.12 sub -S.(2), and (ii) a period of six months from the date of the Collector's award and therefore under the second alternative, her application is within time.

(3.) A detailed counter -affidavit has been filed by he respondent and the stand taken therein is hat the notice under S.12 (2) of the Act war served on the petitioner on 30th October, 1971 and as such her application should have been filed within a period of six weeks, but as it was made beyond the period of six weeks, it was a belated application, and would not therefore, place the Collector under an obligation to make a reference. It is further stated that by a mistake a reference was made to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chengalpattu, but on he court pointing out the limitation provision contained in S.18 (2) (b), the correct principle of law has been applied and the petitioner's application rejected on the ground of limitation.