RAMCHANDRA VITHOBA HANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision application is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by Special Acquisition Officer thereby rejecting the reference filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the References are not filed within the period of limitation.

(2.) The lands belonging to the petitioners have been acquired by the respondent authorities on 13.11.2000 for the public purpose of construction of Urdhav Pravara right canal and they have passed the award under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. The notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2003 and the compensations were paid to the them on 10.12.2003. On 9.12.2003, the petitioners have received the copy of contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have filed References under Section 18 and the petitioner No. 9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer on 9.2.2004 has rejected the References filed by the petitioners under Section 18 on the ground that the said References are not within a period of limitation. Hence, this revision application.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the notices have been received by the petitioners under Section 12(2) on 27.10.2003 and on 9.12.2003 the petitioners received the copy of contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have filed References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner No. 9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004. According to the counsel for the petitioners, since they have received copy of contents of the award on 9.12.2003, the Reference filed by them was well within limitation, and therefore, the Special land Acquisition Officer should not have rejected the Reference. In support of his contention he invited my attention to the documents placed on record and submitted that the concerned Talathi has submitted his report on 30.10.2003, which indicates that though notices were issued on 13.10.2003, the same have been served on the petitioners on 27.10.2003. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003. Therefore, immediately thereafter on 9.12.2003 Reference has been filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and the petitioner No. 9 has filed the reference on 6.2.2004. Therefore, the References are not barred by limitation. Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Exh.1 to the revision application and also invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have received the notices on 27.10.2003 and they have received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,2010 STPL(Web) 149, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show the knowledge on the part of the claimants/appellants, the claim of the appellants that they become aware that the award was made only when the notice was tendered to them and they become aware of the contents of the award on the subsequent dates has to be accepted.