LAWS(GAU)-2006-5-34

R LAITHUAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

Decided On May 16, 2006
R.LAITHUAMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MIZORAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner by the present writ petition has been challenged the communication dated 9-6-2005 issued by the District Collector, Aizawl District, Aizawl to the petitioner intimating him that the application dated 7-4-2005 filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) being not within the time allowed under sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act cannot be entertained and also praying for directing the Collector, Aizawl District to treat the application/Complaint dated 30-8-2004, filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as an application under Section 18 of the Act.

(2.) The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition is stated below: - An acquisition proceeding under the provision of the Act was initiated for acquisition of land for a public purpose namely, Serlui 'B' Hydro Electric Power Project, wherein the land belonging to the petitioner covered by the Garden Pass was also acquired. An award was passed by the learned Collector, Aizawl in the said acquisition proceeding on 3-8-2004. The petitioner claims that on 30-8-2004, an application was filed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister through the local M.L.A., which was in turn handed over to the District Collector, Kolasib District, who subsequently, forwarded to the District Collector, Aizawl District on 6-9-2004, seeking enhancement of compensation, awarded by the learned Collector under the award dated 3-8-2004. The petitioner, thereafter, on 7-4-2005 filed another application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector, Aizawl, together with an application for condonation of delay, requesting the Collector to make a reference to the District Court. The said application was rejected by the Collector by the impugned order dated 9-6-2005 and hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate appear ing on behalf of the respondents.