JAMEEL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter 'Act' for short), read with section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment dated 17.1.97, in MJC (Land Acquisition) No. 33/96, by IXth Addl. D.J. Bhopal, dismissing the reference under section 18(2) (b) of the 'Act', as time barred.

(2.) THE land Acquisition Officer on 16.12.88 passed an award under section 48 of the 'Act' which was approved by the Collector on 20.12.1988. The appellant filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer under section 18 of the 'Act' praying for referral of the matter. The land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the award to the District Court. The learned District Court by the impugned order held that though in the Land Acquisition proceedings there is an application marked as Ex. P -12 purported to be filed on 31.5.89 but the finding of the learned Reference Court is that the said application (Ex. P -12) was not filed on that date, and has been subsequently inserted in the record of the Land Acquisition Officer, and on the basis of the above finding the Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation as having been filed beyond the period prescribed under section 18(2) of the 'Act'.

(3.) THE perusal of the learned trial Court record would indicate that the question of the application for reference having been filed beyond the prescribed period under section 18(2) of the 'Act' was not the subject matter of the issue, nor there is any specific objection in this regard raised by the respondent -State. The impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court has gone into great details regarding the filing of an application under section 18 of the 'Act' for reference on 31.5.1989, and has concluded that it was in fact not filed though there is an endorsement of the officials of the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal thereon, showing that it was presented on that date, These questions were not raised in the case, The finding of fact as above could not have been decided without giving due opportunity of hearing and without opportunity to adduce evidence to the parties.