DEVCHAND NATHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. Nos. 10697/13, 10698/13, 10701/13, 10703/13, 10707/13, 10709/13, 10710/13, 10713/13, 10718/13, 10720/13, 10721/13, 10722/13, 10724/13 to 10729/13, 10731/13 to 10742/13 as the question involved in all the petitions are identical in nature and parties to the petition are also same except petitioner. In all the petitions the order under challenge is dated 29-6-2013 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby application filed by the petitioner under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'Act') was dismissed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the land of the petitioner was acquired as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Before acquisition the land was acquired and award was passed on 28-2-2003. After lapse of several years, petition was filed under section 18 of the Act being dissatisfied with the amount awarded. Writ Petition No. 8288/12 was filed before this Court for certain directions as no order was passed by respondent No. 2 on the application preferred by the petitioner. In the Writ Petition it was prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. Vide order dated 12-9-2012 Writ Petition was decided with a direction to decide the petition under section 18 of the Act within a period of 30 days. In compliance of that impugned order has been passed whereby respondent No. 2 has dismissed the application filed by petitioner on the ground that the application filed under section 18 of the Act is after 10 years, therefore, the same cannot be considered, against which present petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted mat since the petitioner in all the petitions are from backward area and the petitioner in all the petitions are rustic villagers, therefore, learned Court below was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by petitioner in all the petitions. Another ground which has been taken is that the petition has been decided by the SDO/respondent No. 2, which ought to have been decided by the Collector, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioners be allowed and impugned order be set aside with a direction to the learned Court below to redecide the application filed by the petitioner in all the petitions.