LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-339

KHOOB RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On July 16, 2012
Khoob Ram Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following reliefs: -

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that this award is totally illegal inasmuch as no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner. On the other hand on behalf of the State it is contended that in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Bresti Ram (supra) the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. Another contention raised on behalf of the State is that this writ petition is not maintainable because of the fact that the petitioner has not availed efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.7.2007. The petitioner has made an averment that this award was never communicated to his father or to him and he came to know about the award only on 27.1.2010 and applied for the copy on the same date which was supplied to him on 9.2.2010. Even if the award was not communicated to him the remedy which is available is not of filing a writ petition but of filing reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same grounds could have been raised in a petition filed under Section 18 to explain the limitation or to ask for condonation of delay in filing the reference petition. The question whether the petitioner or his father had the knowledge about the award is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings and can only be decided if evidence is led. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available to him. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and he may, while doing so, file an application under Section 5 seeking condonation of delay which application shall be decided on its own merit after hearing all the concerned parties.