CHITTARANJAN SAHU Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant owned plot No. 178/976 with an area of 0.20 acre under Holding No. 254 in village Remuna. This land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (herein -after -called the 'Act'). An award determining compensation for the land at Rs. 690/ - was passed by the Collector on 18 -12 -1967. It is admitted by the Appellant that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon him and upon such service he filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the case to the Court on 22 -12 -1967. The Appellant did not pay Court fee on this petition. On 25 -3 -1968 a notice was served upon the Appellant calling upon him to pay the Court -fee. On 18 -4 -1968 the Appellant paid the Court -fee. On 1 -8 -1968 the petition under Section 18 of the Act was put up before the Collector and thereafter a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal. The learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 18 -11 -1971 rejected the reference on the ground that the petition filed by the Appellant on 22.12.1967 was not a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act as the same was filed without Court -fee; that the Court -fee having been paid on the petition on 18 -4 -1968 a valid petition under Section 18 of the Act was only filed on that day; that the filing of the petition on 18 -4 -1968 being beyond forty -two days from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was barred by limitation and that therefore there could be no valid reference to the Court in the eye of law on the basis of such a petition. Hence the present appeal

(2.) THE first contention of Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the appeal is as follows:

(3.) THE aforesaid conclusion, however, does not finally dispose of the appeal. As has been pointed out, the award was made by the Collector on 18 -12 -967, and as a matter of fact, the petition for referring the case to the Court was made by the Appellant on 22 -12 -1967. It is admitted in paragraph 4 of this petition that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act had been served on the Appellant. The date of such service - is, however, not mentioned in the application nor is there any material before me to come to a finding regarding the exact date of service of this notice. It has, therefore, to be assumed that the Appellant received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act between 18 -1 -1967, the date of the award and 22 -12 -1967, the date of application under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Government Advocate, however, contends that an application under Section 18 of the Act is chargeable with Court -fee under Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court -fees Act. Under Section 6 of the Court -fees Act, no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the First or Second Schedule to this Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of justice, or shall be received or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said Schedules is the proper fee for such document. Accordingly, it is urged that the application under Section 18 of the Act filed by the Appellant on 22 -12 -1967 should be ignored. The records of the Collector show that on 25 -3 -1968 notice was issued from the Collector's office to the Appellant to pay Court -fee on the application under Section 18 of the Act. The Appellant on receipt of the notice paid Court -fee on 18 -4 -1968. It is hence urged that 1 18 -4 -1968 should be taken to be the date when the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, the application must be taken to have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and so, on such an application no valid reference could have been made by the Collector.