DURGU Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, HP. PWD (CZ), Mandi in Case No. 96/11, declining to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act). It has been stated that petitioner had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act before respondent No. 1 for making reference to leaned District Judge, Mandi. He also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short Limitation Act) for condonation of delay. It has been stated that no notice under Section 12 of the Act was issued, however, a cheque dated 1.6.2009 was given to the petitioner as compensation of the acquired land. The petitioner was apprised by the official of respondent No. 1 on 25.6.2011 that award has already been made and entire payment has already been paid. The respondent No. 1 dismissed the petition on 8.1.2013 which has been challenged in the revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that respondent No. 1 has erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation. He has erred in not condoning the delay in as much as petitioner only on 25.6.2011 came to know that the award has been passed under the Act and immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 1 for making the reference alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned order. In the impugned order, it has been observed that award No. 19 was announced on 21.10.2008. The petitioner had received the compensation on 1.6.2009. The reference petition was filed on 1.7.2011. In Section 18 of the Act second proviso has been added by. H.P. Act 17 of 1986 (w.e.f. 22nd July, 1986) which is as follows:

(3.) IN State of Punjab and another vs. Satinder Bir Singh : (1995) 3 SCC 330, it has been held that the statutory operation of limitation mentioned by Section 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under Section 12(2) is received or as envisaged by Section 18(2).