KASHI BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.3.2010, passed in Reference Case No.10-A/1982/2005-06, by the Collector, Bhopal. The petitioners have contended that they made an application for making a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) before the Collector, categorically stating the fact that the award as calculated of the land, said to be acquired by the Notification dated 3.11.2006 and with respect to which, the award was passed on 28.11.2007, was not proper. In fact, the assessment of compensation should have been done in appropriate manner and, therefore, the2 matter was required to be referred to the Civil Court for deciding such an objection. Since the application under Section 18 of the Act aforesaid was not made within time, explaining the delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioners categorically contending that the petitioners could know about the award effectively when certain persons have made an application for making the reference. They also moved the applications on 13.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. The reference itself was made on 22.3.2010 in respect of certain other applications, but the application of the petitioners was rejected saying that the same was not filed within the time. It is contended by the petitioners that if the reference could have been made with respect to some of the applicants, who too were aggrieved by the very same award, condoning the delay, the reference in respect of the claim of the petitioners could have also been made. It is contended that since this was not done, the District Court where the reference has already been registered as M.J.C. No.357/2010 is not considering the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/State, has contended that provisions of Section 18 of the Act specifically prescribes a limitation and, if, an application is not made within the time prescribed, the Collector cannot make a reference under the provisions of the Act aforesaid. Since the petitioners have not made the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act within time, the Collector was right in rejecting the application of the petitioners holding that the same was barred by limitation. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not attracted in such a case. Therefore, it is contended that the revision is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

(3.) Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.