NIRMALA BALA SEN Vs. JATINDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer dated 28/30-7-1973 whereby the application for reference filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in L. A. Case No. 3 of 1972-73 was held to be time barred. It appears that in the above land acquisition case an Award was passed in respect of acquisition of various plots of land. The Award, as it appears from the record, contained provisions for payment to more than 900 persons interested and specific amounts were mentioned as payable to such persons. In the application for reference which was filed on 6-12-1972 it was stated that there has been joint Award in favour of the petitioner with other persons in respect of certain plots even though the said persons were not entitled to any amount as they had no right, title or interest in the lands acquired. Schedule of the lands was given in respect of which the Award In the above case was challenged. The petitioner moved against these orders rejecting her application for reference and obtained the instant Rule with a blanket injunction restraining the Land Acquisition Officer from making payment of money to the opposite parties till the disposal of the Rule.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether the impugned order holding that the application for reference was barred by limitation, is sustainable in law. Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:-- The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Section 18 (1) provides that any person who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the objection which can be raised is inter alia about the person to whom the amount is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. Sub-section (2) is as follows:--

(3.) In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was not present at the time when the Award was made. Of course, it appears from the record that steps were taken on her behalf to produce the relevant documents before the Collector prior to making of the Award in support of her claim. But such appearance cannot be accepted as appearance at the time the Collector made his award, for an award is in the nature of an offer for acceptance by persons interested and their personal presence or presence through representative at the time of making the award is essential for acceptance or otherwise of the offer contained in the award. There is accordingly no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and in fact such notice was sought to be served on the petitioner.