SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) is against the order/award dated 6 -11 -1982 whereby District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan has dismissed the reference application under section 18 of the Act filed by the appellants -claimants on the ground that it was barred by limitation The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Limitation Act) for condonation of delay has also been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under section 18 of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts are that for the construction of a ropeway for Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Rajban, 5 Bighas 10 Biswas land situated in village Rajban, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur belonging to the appellants -claimants was acquired vide Notification dated 6 -2 -1976 issued under section 4 of the Act Further Notification under sections 6 and 7 of the Act was also issued on 29 -10 -1976. After holding proceedings under section 9 of the Act the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 31 -8 -1977 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,008 per Bigha. 3 Being aggrieved, the appellants -claimants filed application under section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector in the year 1980, which was referred to the Court of the District Judge, where it was registered as Land Reference No. 10 -N/4 of 1981. The respondents contested the reference on merits as well as on law point of limitation In view of the objections of the respondents, one of the issues framed by the District Judge was that, "Whether the reference application made by the applicant is time barred - However, the appellants -claimants during the pendency of reference filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the reference application on 27 -7 -1982, which was also opposed by the respondents and following additional issues were framed 1.Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the reference petition, as alleged ? 2 Relief.

(4.) In their application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, sufficient cause for delay in filing the application under section 18 of the Act was that in the second week of September 977 the applicants approached their counsel Shri S. S. Gill, Advocate, Nahan for filing reference application and on his advice applied for obtaining certified copy of the award of th? Land Acquisition Collector on 14 9 -19 7, which was made available to them on 206 -1980 and thereafter referencewas filed on 24 6 -1980. It is also stated that they had acted bonafide on the advice of their counsel that copy of the award was necessary for drafting reference application and the time taken in obtaining it would not he counted for the purpose of period of limitation. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was supported by the affidavits of appellant claimant Santokh Singh and their counsel Shri S. S Gill, Advocate, Nahan To their wisdom, the counsel for the parties gave statements on 4 6 1982 that they did not want to produce any oral evidence and the District Judge decided the application by the impugned order dated 611 1982 holding that it is not maintainable. For his findings that section 5 of the Limitation Act docs not apply to the proceedings under section 18 of the Act, the District Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jamita Ram and others v. Collector of Kangra District, AIR 1982 HP 53, which we will discuss in the later part of this judgment.