LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-17

BAL RAJ SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Decided On August 30, 2007
BAL RAJ SINGH Appellant
V/S
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground urged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by the respondent-Land Acquisition Collector (North Zone), HPPWD, Kangra rejecting the petitioners' application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is that the respondent did not have any jurisdiction to reject such an application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Collector has no power, authority or jurisdiction to reject an application filed under Section 18 of the Act even if it is time barred. In other words, the submission is that even if an application is time barred the Collector having no power to reject the same is bound to make a Reference to the District Judge who alone is competent to consider and decide whether the application was or is time barred or not. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 reads thus:-

(2.) BY virtue of Section 2 of the Land Acquisition (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act No.17 of 1986) second proviso was added to sub-section (2) (supra) in so far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. This second proviso reads thus:-

(3.) IN the case of Mohan Lal Revta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, reported in 1992 (2) Sim.L.C. 97, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter arising out of the rejection of an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector on the ground of it being time barred and by referring to the aforesaid second proviso upheld the order of rejection passed by the Collector, clearly implying therein that the jurisdiction and power exercised by the Collector in rejecting a time barred application was sustainable in law.