TAKHAT SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners/claimants/land owners challenging the order dtd. 15/12/2023 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First District Judge, Begamganj, District Raisen in MJC No.51/2023 whereby reference made by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Raisen has been dismissed by the District Judge under Order VII Rule 11 CPC holding it to be barred by limitation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer (in short 'LAO') on 31/12/2013 and after passing of the award by LAO, no notice as required under Sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was served on the petitioners, therefore, they were not aware of the contents of the award and when the cheques were delivered to the petitioners on 21/25/8/2014, then only they became aware of the award passed by LAO, thereafter they applied for certified copy of the award passed by LAO and made application to the Collector on 28/1/2015 within a period of six months, which was rightly referred by the Collector to the District Judge vide order dtd. 9/9/2019, with the request to the District Judge to decide the reference.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that after making reference by the Collector, the Court was bound to decide the reference on merits and not on the question of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which even otherwise is a mixed question of law and facts, that is beyond the scope of order VII Rule 11 CPC. He submits that District Judge has committed illegality in dismissing the reference as barred by limitation, which was clearly within limitation. With these submissions he prays for allowing the civil revision and for setting aside the impugned order with the further direction to the District Judge to decide the reference application on merits.