KANCHCHID Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case the Collector was justified in rejecting the Petitioner's application file under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referrred to as the 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. 1.1 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-I 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 Respond- ent No. 2 to make the reference to the District Judge, Bulanclshahr. The Facts:

(2.) The petitioner's 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. 9518 Khata No. 119 Village Baran he filed his objection before the Special Land Acquistion Officer claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per square yard in terms of the circle rate of the area notified by the Collactor 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 or 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 i.e. 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 Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, contended that the application filed for Reference under Section 18 of the Act was illegally rejected by Respondent No. 2. In fact he lacked jurisdiction to do so and it was for the District Judge to consider the reference, whether it was barred by limitation and if so, whether for the reasons stated in the limitation application the delay was fit to be condoned. He also submitted that the question of limitation was required to be adjudicated after taking of the evidence. In order to support his submissions he placed reliance on three Single Judge judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in (i) Dharam Pal v. The Collector Land Acquisition Urban Development, Punjab & Anr, (ii) Jeet Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, (Hi) Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.