DHARAM DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by a common award under which different sums were awarded by way of compensation, the petitioners made three separate applications to the Land Acquisition Collector HP PWD Simla Kullu and Outer Sharaj (the second respondent) seeking reference to the Court under section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 there in after referred to as "the Act",. All the three applications were disposed of by separate orders and were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) The fact that the applications were time -barred is not in dispute since they were received by the second respondent three days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The further fact that the petitioners had moved separate applications seeking condonation of delay and that they were rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that such applications were maintainable in view of the proviso to sub -section (2) of section 18 of the Act which has been enacted by the Land Acquisition (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, which received the assent of the President on July 11, 1986.

(3.) The petitioners state that on March 29, 1987, when the award was announced, only the gist thereof was pronounced orally. The detailed particulars of the award were not communicated to the parties. The compensation was paid on April 13, 1987. Meanwhile, on April 3, 1987, an application for the supply of a certified copy of the award was made by the first petitioner. The other petitioners made similar applications on May 6, 1987. The certified copies were not supplied for quite sometime and, therefore, a Contempt Petition (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 40 of 1987) was moved in this Court. The copies were ultimately supplied on August 24, 1987. The applications for reference under section 18 (1) of the Act were, however, despatched to the second respondent by registered post on May 12, 1987, in the meantime, and were received on May 14, 1987. The petitioners submit that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient cause for not preferring the applications under section 18 (1) within the time prescribed by law, since the certified copies of the award were not made available to them till August 24, 1987 and although the applications were made meanwhile, they could not have effectively exercised their right to seek a reference until after the receipt of the copies.