HARI LAL KOTWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue is purely legal. Written Objections are not necessary, Heard. Admitted. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the Land Acquisition Collector, Bhaderwah, has taken an erroneous view in not referring the application submitted u/s. 18 of the J & K Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990. to the reference Court. The facts in brief are as under: The land belonging to the petitioner was subject matter of acquisition. This is not in dispute. An award has also been given by the Land Acquisition Collector, This is also not disputed. The further fact is that the petitioner submitted an application seeking a reference to the Reference Court. This has been declined vide order Annexure 'F'. The short order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, while exercising the powers of Collector, Land Acquisition, Bhaderwah, reads as under:

(3.) It be seen that the question as to whether the Reference application is within limitation or not, wouid be dependent upon the fact as to when the petitioners came to know about the award. If the petitioners were present at the time when the award was announced, then, the limitation would start from that date. If the land owner is not present and the award is given in his absence, then the limitation would start from the date of knowledge. This precise question was considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as State of Punjab v. Mst. Jehan Begum. The view expressed by the Supreme ; Court in so far as it is relevant for this point is as under: