GARU LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. In the nature of the judgment, we propose to pass in this writ petition, no notice need be issued to respondent No. 3.

(2.) As a matter of fact, the grouse as brought to this court by filing the present writ petition is that the second respondent did not refer the matter to the District Judge as required under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of delay. The point in issue is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court dated November 26, 2018 passed in CWP No. 2741 of 2018, titled as Surat Ram and another versus State of H.P. and others in which it has been held that against an order passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector, the remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act is to challenge the same by way of filing a revision petition.

(3.) This writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The same is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the matter of limitation, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as he has been pursuing the remedy in the wrong forum. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.