(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Civil), Cuttack rejecting her application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that the same was time barred.
(2.) For the purpose of the constructing a link road to the bridge over Kendrapara Canal lands including the petitioner's land measuring Ac. 0.05 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 898 were acquired. On December 18, 1991 the Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack passed an award for the acquired lands in favour of different persons, but no award was passed in favour of the petitioner. It appears that compensation for the petitioner's land was awarded in her vendor's favour. On December 27, 1991 the petitioner filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector putting forward her claim in respect of the aforesaid Ac. 0.05 decimals of land of plot No. 898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land') for inclusion of her name in the award and for passing a proper award for the aforesaid disputed land. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector on February 5, 1992 to support her claim. On February 5, 1992 the petitioner and her vendor were heard. On that dale the Land Acquisition Collector recorded inter alia:-
(3.) It appears from the impugned order that the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded on the basis that the award in favour of the petitioner was passed on February 5, 1992 in her presence and that the petitioner received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on March 13, 1992. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Panda has urged that the petitioner did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and no award was passed on February 5, 1992 in her presence. Mr. S.K. Nayak learned Additional Government Advocate has referred to the records of the Land Acquisition Proceeding to support the impugned order.