NIGONDA BABAJI PATIL Vs. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges acquisition of his land for public purpose. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is dated 27.10.1983. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 19.8.1986. In paragraph 24 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the declaration made under section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.8.1986. The petitioner has further stated that will the date of filling the petition, he has not received any notice of passing of the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petition has been filed in this Court on 12.12.1989.

(2.) THE respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply. In their affidavit, they have stated that an Award under Section 11 was passed on 3.10.1988. They have further contended that the Award in this case was made within the period allowed by Section 11-A of the Act. However, in their affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have not denied that the statement made in paragraph 24 of the petition that till the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 12th December 1989, notice under section 12 of the Act was not served on the petitioner. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the bare statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents that the Award in the present case was passed on 3.10.1988 can be accepted in the absence of a copy of the Award itself being filed on record, or order sheets maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer for that purpose, being placed on record; or in the absence of denial by the respondents of a positive statement made in the petition that fill the date of filing the petition, notice under Section 12 of the Act was not served on the petitioner. It is to be seen that sub-section (2) of Section 12, casts a mandatory duty on the Collector to give immediate notice of his Award to the interested persons who are not present personally or through their representatives when the Award is made. In the present case, it is nobody's case that on the date on which the Award is alleged to have been made, the petitioner or his representation was present be for the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act immediately after making of the Award. The undisputed position that notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 was not given to the petitioner till December 1989 creates doubt about the fact that the Award was actually made on 3rd October 1988 as claimed by the respondents. It is thus clear from what has been stated above that the respondents have not been able to produce before the Court any material to establish that the Award was made within the period allowed by Section 11A of the Act. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, therefore we are left with no alternative but to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Award in the present case was not made within the period allowed by Section 11A of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings for the acquisition of the petitioner's land have lapsed.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and in allowed. The notification issued under Section 4 the declaration made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent they acquire 41 Ares of land from the holding of the petitioner referred to above are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.