K. SESHACHALAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respendent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner's land was acquired by the Government and the petitioner filed his objection on 27th April, 1947. An award under Section 11 was passed on 14th June, 1947. According to the terms of Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector should give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. A notice appears to have been despatched on 11th July, 1947. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the notice was returned unserved. The petitioner who had no knowledge of the award wrote to the Collector for information. He received intimation about the passing of the award by the communication of the Collector dated 31st March, 1951, in L. Dis. No. 5321 of 1951. He requested the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act but the Collector refused to make a reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner has consequently filed this writ for the issue of a mandamus.

(2.) The facts as disclosed in the affidavit clearly establish that the statutory notice required under Section 12 (2) of the Act was not served on the petitioner. It also appears that he had no knowledge till the receipt of the Collector's communication dated 31st March, 1951. So, the only question that has to be determined is, whether his claim for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is barred by limitation. The proviso to Section 18 (2) of the Act runs in the following terms :

(3.) Sri D. V. Reddi Pantulu, on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner must have made enquiries as to the passing of the award and that it is unlikely that he had no knowledge of the passing of the award for nearly four years. As there is nothing on record to show that he had any knowledge, I am not willing to accept his contention. The writ was filed after correspondence passed between the petitioner and the Collector. It seems to be an eminently a fit case for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. I therefore issue a writ directing the Collector to make a reference to the proper Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ is therefore allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.