RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Shri Raja Ram for a direction to be issued to the Land Acquisition Collector (respondent No. 2) to forward the application of the petitioner under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly called the Act) to the District Judge for adjudication of his objections.

(2.) 15 bighas 7 biswas of land comprised in khasra number 36/1 in village Gumma, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, belonging to the petitioner had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) by his award dated June 2i, 1973. According to the petitioner no publicity, etc. as required under section 4 (1) of the Act was made in the locality by the authority concerned and as such the petitioner could not file objections under section 5 -A of the Act: He became aware of the award only on May 24, 1974 when compensation was paid to him. He received the same under protest. Before that date he had no notice of the award. He, therefore, immediately filed an application through his counsel before the Collector under section 18 of the Act, copy of which is Annexure A. To the knowledge of the petitioner no orders had been passed by respondent 2 on the same. The action of respondent 2 in not forwarding the application under section 18 to the District Judge is illegal because the Collector, according to him did not forward the application considering the same to be time -barred. He had not received any notice of the award. There was no discretion with the Collector under section 18 to forward or not to forward the application and he was duty bound to make a reference. He could not file the application under section 18 before June, 1974, as he for the first time came to know about the award only in May 1974, and as such the application was within time. It was also not for the Collector to decide whether or not the application is barred by time.

(3.) The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petition suffers from laches and delay and as such deserves to be dismissed. Further that the writ petition is bad for non -joinder of the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board as a party on whose behalf the land was acquired and possession delivered. It was further averred that the reference was withheld not on account of being time -barred but on account of the fact that the petitioner had received the amount of compensation without any protest.