SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant regular first appeal, is, constituted against, the, apposite order, of, dismissal, as made on a petition, cast under Section, 18, of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act), by the land owner, hence, before the learned reference Court concerned. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved land owner, has fairly submitted, that, even if, assumingly, the land reference petition, bearing No. 153/2005 (154/2003), was mis-constituted, inasmuch as, it was time barred, (i) yet, the learned reference Court, became enjoined to remit it, to the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned, to, ensure, that therealongwith the apposite land reference petition, cast under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hence seeking enhancement, of, the compensation amount, as determined earlier, by the Collector concerned, rather a petition cast, under, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, becomes or became appended therewith, (ii) for hence enabling the learned reference Court, to, after condoning, the, apposite delay, it validly entering, upon, the reference petition, as became aptly transmitted, to it, by the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned. The afore submission, is, legally well-grooved, as the Collector concerned, has no jurisdiction, to, make any valid order, upon, an application constituted, under, Section 5, of, the Limitation Act, rather it becomes incumbent upon him, to make, a, valid reference, of the, apposite land reference petition, even if, it is time barred, rather vis-a-vis, the reference Court, through his ensuring qua an application, cast, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rather becoming appended therewith, for enabling the learned reference Court, to make a valid order thereon, given, the learned reference Court alone, holding jurisdiction, to, condone the apposite delay. (iii) Moreover, only upon an affirmative precursory order, becoming rendered thereon, thereupon alone, the, reference Court assumes valid jurisdiction, upon, the land reference petition.

(2.) Be that as it may, admittedly, hence the land reference petition, remained un-accompanied, by, an application, cast under section 5, of, the Limitation Act, (i) and, despite, the, afore land reference petition, remaining un-accompanied, by, the afore apposite application, rather the learned reference Court, proceeded to strike issues, vis-a-vis, the land reference petition, rather being time barred, and also proceeded, to, decline relief, on merits, to the land owner, the aggrieved appellant herein. The afore striking of issues, vis-a-vis, hence the apposite reference petition, being time barred, necessarily, is, a mis-recoursed endeavour, by the learned reference Court, as the, exercising(s), of, jurisdiction, hence by the learned reference Court, upon, the land reference petition, is, dependant, only upon, a validly constituted, hence within limitation, rather, a, land reference petition, being transmitted to it, for, a decision being recorded thereon, (iii) or in case, it was time barred, an application, cast under Section 5, of, the limitation Act, being ensured, to become appended therewith, hence for enabling the learned reference Court, to make a valid affirmative order thereon, and, whereafter, it, becomes enabled to validly try the referred lis, hence on merits. Reiteratedly, the, appropriate valid recorsing(s), were, constituted in the extantly mis-constituted petition, being remitted, to, the land acquisition collector concerned, for ensuring, that, the latter elicits, from, the aggrieved land owner, an application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for his, projecting therein, the requisite condonatory grounds, rather in explication, of, the apposite occurring delay. Contrarily, in the learned reference Court, rather entering upon, the land reference petition, dehors, the appending(s) therewith, of, the afore imperative application, (iv) besides in the learned reference Court, suo motu, within the referred thereat hence land reference petition, rather striking an issue, vis-a-vis, the land reference petition, being time barred, and, also its answering the afore, against the petitioner, and also, it declining the relief, on merits, is, a grossly unmeritworthy recoursing. .

(3.) Consequently, the regular first appeal, is, allowed, and, the impugned order is quashed, and, set aside. The learned reference Court is directed to remit, the, incomplete or mis-constituted land reference petition, to, the collector concerned, to, enable the latter, to, refer, a, completely constituted reference petition, in, accordance with law, hence for validly enabling, the, reference Court, to exercise, valid jurisdiction thereon. It is clarified that the afore exercise, be completed, within three months hereafter, and, upon, a validly constituted land reference petition, being received, by the learned reference Court, thereupon it shall without its being influenced, by the earlier declining, of, relief, on merits, to the land owners concerned, by, the reference Court, rather shall make a fresh decision, thereon, in accordance with law. Also, rather emphasizingly, a valid affirmative order, in accordance with law, be earlier thereto, hence be ensured, to be, pronounced on an application appended therewith, and, cast under Section 5, of, the Limitation Act.