SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 1.5.2006 and 28.5.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Agra rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for referring the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition indicates that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, the land in dispute was acquired for the purposes of developing the 'Green Belt' surrounding the precincts of 'Taj Mahal'. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.6.2000. The petitioner No.1 moved an application dated 20.12.2000 before the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter to the Reference Court while petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 filed the application on 19.2.2001 for referring the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Both these applications remained pending before the Land Acquisition Officer as a result of which the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 15721 of 2006 for a direction upon the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. This Court, by means of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2006, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application within three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order according to law. The Land Acquisition Officer, by means of the order dated 1.5.2006, rejected the application filed by petitioner No.1 on the ground that it was not maintainable. As regards the application filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, the Land Acquisition Officer pointed out that the application had earlier been rejected by the order dated 28.5.2002. A perusal of the order dated 28.5.2002 shows that the application filed under Section 18 of the Act was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred.

(3.) We have heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.