CHHAJU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by respondent No. 1, Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar (for short the Collector) gave the Award on 30th November, 1979 In the aforesaid Award, no compensation was assessed for the trees. Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and vide order dated 8th October, 1985 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4664 of 1984, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Collector to gave Award for the trees within three months. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Collector gave Award on 3rd January, 1986. The day the Award was announced, no payment was made to the petitioner. Petitioner received payment by cheque only on 30th March, 1986. However, prior to the receipt of the Award, petitioner sent two applications dated 12th February, 1986 by registered post on 13th February, 1986 from the Post Office situated at Civil Courts, Pathankot. These applications were received by the Officer of the Collector on 17th February, 1986. Petitioner on 17th November, 1986 received a letter from respondent No 3 purporting to be dated 7th November, 1986 vide which petitioner was informed that the Award in respect of fruit bearing trees was announced on 3rd January, 1986 and, therefore, reference could be made by 14th February, 1986. Since the applications for making reference were received only on 17th November, 1986, the same are time barred and, therefore, stand rejected. This order is being impugned here in this revision.

(2.) THE order under revision is apparently not sustainable in law. The Collector dismissed the application without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to explain the cause of delay. The Collector was bound in law to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or should have conducted an enquiry after summoning the petitioners and after taking into consideration their explanation, if any. In this case, the Collector neither conducted any enquiry nor afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before rejecting their prayer for making a reference to the competent Court under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. I am further of the view that the petitioners have successfully explained the reason for the delay in making the applications. Compensation was not paid on the date when the Award was announced and it was paid only on 30th March, 1986 when the petitioners received the payment by cheque. Petitioners had already sent the applications for making a reference on 13th February, 1986 through registered post which in normal course, should have reached the very next date that is 14th February, 1986. However, due to delay on the part of the Postal Authorities, the same was received by the Collector on 17th February, 1986 The delay of three days in these circumstances ought to have been condoned.