CHUHARU RAM Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, PWDQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1.11.2006 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, H.P. PWD, Mandi in case titled as Chuharu Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector. The facts, in brief, are that land comprised in khasra No. 92/1, measuring 0 -5 -4 bighas, situate at village Bharjawanu, Tehsil Sundernagar was acquired and award was made on 28.2.2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act). A notice under Section 12 of the Act was received by the petitioner on 17.4.2006, he also received compensation Rs. 82,526/ - on 17.4.2006 under protest. The petitioner applied for a copy of award on 16.5.2006 which was supplied to him on 31.7.2006 and he moved an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector for making reference to the Court. The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector on 1.11.2006, hence revision.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector has ignored proviso added to Section 18 of the Act vide Himachal Pradesh Act 17 of 1986, which provides Collector may entertain an application under Section 18 after the expiry of the period of six weeks but within a period of six months, if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. He has submitted for acceptance of the revision. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned order and has submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order.

(3.) THE copy of the award is not required to be filed with the request to make reference but how the Collector has assessed the compensation would become clear only after the perusal of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that he received a copy of award on 31.7.2006 and he filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act on 1.8.2006. The filing of petition on 1.8.2006 is within six months from 17.4.2006 when petitioner received the notice under Section 12 of the Act. In the impugned order, the Collector has not considered whether the petitioner has explained sufficient cause w.e.f. 17.4.2006 to 1.8.2006 for filing the petition under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, impugned order is not sustainable. In view of above the order dated 1.11.2006 is set aside. The Collector is directed to refer the petition under Section 18 of the Act of the petitioner to the competent Court of jurisdiction for decision in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.