DAMMU Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 4734/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing this revision, has been filed by the applicants. It is contended that the order passed in the note-sheet, though was approved by the Collector, was never communicated to the applicants within time and they were not aware whether their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'Act') was properly decided or not and on account of this reason, they could not approach this Court by way of filing this revision. Though the notices of the said I.A. has been issued to the respondents, yet no response whatsoever has been filed by them.

(2.) Considering the aforesaid, I.A. stands allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that when the award was passed on 09.04.2006 by the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Betul, the said fact was never brought to the notice of the beneficiaries like applicants herein. They were not aware that their land has been acquired as they were not given any notice of their appearance. Only when the notice was issued to them, they were asked to receive the cheque of the award amount and nothing else. The moment they came to know about passing of the award, they moved an application under Section 18 of the Act, which ought to have been decided by the Collector as under the provisions of the Act, such an application is to be considered only and only by the Collector and not by any other authority. This being so, the Sub Divisional Officer was not required to look into the application of the applicants, the same was required to be referred to the Collector. However, purportedly exercising the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, though the Sub Divisional Officer was not required to pass any order on the application of the applicants, the impugned order was passed. Approval of the same was obtained from the Collector and application of the applicants was rejected saying that it was barred by limitation. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is per se illegal and liable to be set aside.