NABAKISHORE MISHRA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DHENKANAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a reference application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by opposite party No.3 herein. In that reference the names of the petitioners herein were also shown. Opposite party No.3 raised an objection pointing out that he alone had made the application for reference and his claim for enhancement of the compensation alone fell for decision. The petitioners herein attempted to resist this contention by claiming that they were co -owners of the property along with opposite party No.3 and they were also entitled to compensation. But in view of the fact that they had not sought reference in the particular proceeding, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul held that their claim cannot be entertained. I find that the view taken by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), is consistent with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another : AIR 1996 SC 1513. After all, if the Court ultimately finds that opposite party No.3 is only a co -owner and not a full owner, the consequence will be that he will be entitled only to his share in the enhanced compensation. That does not mean that the claim of those who had not applied for reference can considered.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Act. If so,it was for the concerned Officer to make the reference to the Court, if it was in time and if the compensation awarded had been received under protest. The Additional Government Advocate submitted that the application filed by the petitioners, if any, was hopelessly out of time. He also submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to make a reference. That is so. If the petitioners have not sought a reference by making an application in time, they may not be entitled to have a reference of their claim to the Court. In either case the Land Acquisition Officer has a duty to inform the petitioners about the fate of their application if they had in fact filed an application. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.