KANCHID Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.- Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case the Collector was justified in rejecting the Petitioner's application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as being barred by limitation/ and whether the Collector under Section 18 of the Act has jurisdiction to condone the delay occurred in preference of the ap­plication for reference? are the two ques­tions for our adjudication in this writ peti­tion. Firstly, the prayers of the petitioner. The petitioner's first prayer is to quash the order, dated 17-5-1993 passed by Respon­dent No. 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organisation), Bulandshahr as contained in Annexure-1 reject­ing his application dated 18-8-1992 filed for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of limitation stating that whereas the Award was made on 25-10-1991 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 2-2-1992 and thus the Refer­ence application is barred by limitation and that the application filed under Sec­tion 5 of the Limitation Act seeking con­donation of delay has also got no merit. His another prayer is to command Respon­dent No. 2 to make the reference to the District Judge, Bulandshahr. The Facts:

(2.) THE petitioners' case is as follows: On issuance of the Notification under Sec­tion 4(1) of the Act acquiring 4 Biswas of his land bearing Plot No. 951 Khata No. 119 village Baran he filed his objection before the Special Land Acquisition Of­ficer claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per square yard in terms of the circle rate of the area notified by the Col­lector for charging stamp duty before the making of the Award by the Collector. At that time the petitioner was not present for the reason that the date or the expected date of giving the award was not notified. No notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on him. He came to know of the award for the first time on 7-8-1992 and filed Reference Application on 18-8-1992 Le. to say within six weeks period from the date of knowledge and as such it was well within the period of limitation as provided under Section 18(2) of the Act. A petition seeking condonation of delay was also filed by way of abundant precaution. The Refer­ence Application was illegally rejected by the Respondent No. 2, who had no juris­diction to do so, rather he was duty bound to refer the application to the District Judge, who alone was competent to decide it and hence this Writ Petition. The Submissions:

(3.) SRI P.K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended as follows : As the Reference was barred by limitation, the Collector could not refer it to the District Judge for adjudication. The petitioner has not brought on the record copy of the service report to show that there was no valid service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act in the eye of law. The petitioner has also not brought on the record the order sheet of Respondent No. 2 to show that the Award was made on such a date which was not fixed from before. The words “the determination of the Court” occurring in Section 18(1) of the Act means determination in regard to merits and not in regard to such a Reference Application which is barred by limitation. In any event the Collector lacked jurisdic­tion to condone the delay. The fault lay squarely with the petitioner inasmuch as he never prayed before the Collector that an opportunity be granted to him to ad­duce evidence rather he contended with his affidavit attached with his petition. ;.