(1.) Twenty-six Kanals and fifteen Marlas of land belonging to the petitioner-company was acquired by the State of Haryana for the development of Sector 12, Faridabad, by means of a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), dated July 13, 1971, and under Section 6 of the Act, dated February 4, 1972. The award was given by the Collector on March 28, 1972, awarding some amount of compensation to the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, received the amount of award under protest and filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, on May 5, 1972, before the Collector for being forwarded to the District Judge. Without notice to the petitioner-company and without affording any opportunity, the petition was rejected on February 3, 1976, and the petitioner-company was informed of the decision. According to the letter by which this decision was conveyed, it was intimated that the petitioner-company was not entitled to avail of the right under Section 18 of the Act, as Section 50(2) of the Act was attracted. Thereafter, the petitioner-company sent one letter to the Administrator, Urban Estates, Faridabad and another letter dated October 1, 1976, to the Additional Director, Urban Estates, representing that Section 50(2) of the Act, was not attracted as the land had not been acquired by the State of Haryana for the petitioner-company. On the other hand, the land of the petitioner-company had been acquired by the State. On receipt of the communication from the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner-company furnished the requisition evidence to the Collector and thereafter, after waiting for the reply for a considerable time, addressed a letter dated February 22, 1979, to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, again requesting him to forward the application under Section 18 of the Act, to the District Judge. The petitioner-company was finally informed by letter dated March 26, 1979, that in view of Section 50(2) of the Act, the application could not be forwarded to the District Judge and the same had already been rejected. The present revision petition was filed on June 26, 1979. These facts are not disputed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that on merits, the order of the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be sustained. A close perusal of Section 50(2) of the Act, leaves no manner of doubt that only in cases where the land is acquired for a company by the State and the compensation determined is to be paid by the company, Section 50(2) of the Act is attracted. In the present case, it was the reverse case. It was the land belonging to the petitioner-company which had been acquired by the State. This order of the Land Acquisition Collector, declining to forward the application under Section 18 of the Act, was patently wrong and illegal. The petitioner-company had not even been heard before this order was passed. Inspite of the representation by the petitioner-company, the Land Acquisition Collector strangely persisted in his unsustainable illegal order.
(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the State, wants to make capital on the point of limitation and wants the revision petition to be dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed after a considerable delay. According to him, the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act had been filed on May 5, 1972 and had been rejected on February 3, 1976, but the revision petition has been filed after more than three years whereas the limitation provided was 90 days. The contention though quite attractive on the face of it has no substance. The State of Haryana should not have tried to get advantage on a technical point of limitation. From the resume of facts as reproduced above, it is clear that after the petitioner-company was informed of the decision rejecting the petition, which was only an ex-parte order, the petitioner-company sent the representation to the Collector and other authorities on September 28, 1976. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector did not intimate the decision rejected the representation before March 26, 1979. From this date, the revision petition was filed within limitation. In any case, any delay in filing the revision petition in view of the circumstances of this case has to be ignored as there is sufficient cause for the same. The order was patently illegal and without jurisdiction and as held in Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab,1972 PunLR 374 when such an order comes to the notice of the Court, there is no option left to the Court except to set it aside in the best interest of justice.