LAWS(ALL)-1996-4-105

BIMLA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 08, 1996
BIMLA KUMARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29-9-95 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nagar Mahapalika), Allahabad, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), wherein the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act and refused to make a reference to the court. The impugned order is very short and reads as under: "perused the opinion of the D. G. C. (Civil), reference is time barred and hence rejected".

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the land of the petitioner measuring only 12 biswas, i. e. 1632 sq. yards in plot No. 419 situated at the revenue estate of village Kasari Masari, district Allahabad, was covered by a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 13-7-90 and in respect of which declaration under Section 6 of the Act and been issued on 20-8-90. THE petitioner was dispossessed by the respondent No. 2 on 12-11-90 by resorting to the provision of urgency clause enshrined in Section 17 of the Act. THE petitioner was awarded 80% or the estimated value of the land as required under Section 17 (3-A) of the Act but some persons raised the dispute regarding the title of the petitioner and the matter was referred to the District Judge under Section 31 (2) of the Act for reference vide order dated 23-2-91 of the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). THE reference court decided the dispute of the ownership in L. A. R. No. 53/91, Smt. Bimal Kumari v. Hamid Ali and Anr. vide its order dated 8-8-95 in favour of the petitioner and she was paid the entire disputed amount (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ).

(3.) IT is settled law that making a reference under Section 18 (2) of the Act the Land Acquisition Collector passes an administrative order, it is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function and thus the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not attracted at all.