HET RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands, of the petitioners were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act mi an award was passed on 14.8.1986. A supplementary award was passed on 18.2.1987. But at the time when the Supplementary award was passed the parties were not present. A notice normally would have to be issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) informing the parties that the award had been passed but such a notice was not issued. The petitioners came to know of the award on 10.4.1987 and sent a communication on 5.5.1987 to the second respondent, in which they said clearly that they wanted to file a Reference petition and therefore, required a copy of the supplementary award dated 18.2.1987. It was also mentioned in that letter that they had applied for the copy on 10.4.1987 but till then they had not been supplied with such a copy. Thereafter also, the petitioners did not get a copy of the award. They sent a communication on 9.5.1988 under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement of the compensation giving all the details on the basis of which they wanted such an enhancement. Along with that communication they had sent a covering letter, in which it had been stated that the payment of compensation was received by them earlier under protest and they wanted the matter to be referred to the District Judge for disposal in accordance with law under Section 18 of the Act. It was also stated by them that there were sufficient reasons for holding that the petition for reference was within time and in the alternative there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the said petition.

(2.) The said petition for reference was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 1.7.1988. The second respondent held that the petitioners having come to know the award on 10.4.1987 but did not prefer the application within six months there from under Section 18(2) (b) of the Act and thus, the petition was barred by limitation. The second respondent also held that there was no application condonation of delay by the petitioners at consequently, the petition for Reference not sustainable. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) The first contention urged by learned counsel is that without a copy of the award for which an application had been made by the petitioners, they would not be in a position to know the details of the award and without such details they could not be expected to seek a Reference under Section 18 of the Act It is contended that a petitioner for copies having been filed and not complied with by the second respondent, the petition for Reference could not be said to be barred by limitation. It is also argued that the letter which accompanied the petition for reference was itself a petition for condonation of delay in seeking the Reference and the second respondent ought to have condoned the delay taking the facts and circumstances of the case into account