LAXMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raigad, Alibag (Respondent No. 2), whereby the application of the petitioners for reference to Court under section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the "act") was dismissed on the ground that it had not been made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act.

(2.) THE land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was made under section 11 of the Act on 8th August, 1989. The petitioners were not present or represented before the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time he made his award. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice under section 12 (2) of the Act on 22nd August 1989. The petitioners applied for reference under section 18 (1) of the Act on 5th January, 1990. However, the said application having not been made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act, was dismissed by the respondent No. 2, as being barred by limitation. The petitioners have challenged the above order.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the application of petitioners under section 18 of the Act is not barred by limitation. The case of the petitioners is that after receipt of the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act on 22nd August 1989, the petitioners made an application for certified copy of the award on 12th September, 1989. The certified copy was received by them on 19th December, 1989. After receipt of the certified copy, the petitioners prepared the application under section 18 (1) of the Act and filed the same on 5th January, 1990. The learned Counsel submits that the limitation of six weeks prescribed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act should be computed from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order by the petitioners and not from the date of receipt of the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act and if it is so computed, the application of the petitioners is within time. Mr. Bagla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that in a case where notice has been served under section 12 (2) of the Act, the application for reference under section 18 of the Act should be made within six weeks of the receipt of such notice. According to Mr. Bagla, there is no basis and/or justification for the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that the limitation should be computed from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the award or that in computing the period of limitation of six weeks, the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the award should be excluded. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh) 1995 3 S. C. C. 330 and (Officer on Special Duty (Land Acqn.) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal) 1996 (9) S. C. C. 414.