SAMBHU NATH KSHETRY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were interested in the award as a co-sharer in respect of the award declared jointly in favour of all the co-sharers without apportionment by the Collector. The Collector deposited the amount under section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the Court. The learned Land Acquisition Judge had apportioned the amount between the co-sharers. While the other co-sharers had applied for reference under section 18 within the time provided under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18. The petitioner had made such application after the apportionment and allegedly after having withdrawn the money so apportioned. The Land Acquisition Collector had rejected the said application under section 18 by an order date 19th June, 2000, which has since been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Mr. Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the petitioner had produced the original deeds on 2nd September, 1998 and hearing took place on 15th September, 1998, in which the petitioner was present. Joint award was declared on 23rd October, 1998. On 20th May, 1999 the Collector had deposited the amounts under section 31(2) before the Land Acquisition Judge. By a notice dated 16th June, 1999, annexure P-2 to the writ application, the petitioners were informed about the joint award. The said intimation was received by the petitioners on 22nd June, 1999. The petitioners had also made 2 applications before the learned Land Acquisition Judge praying for apportionment of the award among the co-sharers. On 18th November, 1999 the learned Land Acquisition Judge allowed the apportionment and permitted to withdraw the amount and that the amount have been believed to be withdrawn by the petitioners. On 29th December, 1999 the petitioners filed two applications before the Collector seeking a reference to the learned Land Acquisition Judge. On 19th June, 2000 the Collector as mentioned above, had rejected the said applications.

(3.) According to Mr. Dasgupta, even though the petitioners might not have received the notice under section 12(2) but the petitioners had knowledge of the award on receipt of the notice dated 16th June, 1999 on 22nd of June, 1999. Therefore, the limitation as provided in sub-section (2) of section 18 will start running on and from 22nd June, 1999. Thus the application for reference made on 22nd December, 1999 is out of time and Collector has no jurisdiction to refer the same. Therefore, the order was rightly passed rejecting the application. Elaborating his submission he contended that there is no provision for condoning the delay. At the same time, Collector is the only authority who can make the reference. Alternatively, he contended that as soon he participated in the proceedings under section 31(2), knowledge of the petitioners shall be deemed to have been acquired. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of such application having been made after the time had expired. He had also relied on various decisions in support of his contention to which reference would be made at appropriate stage.