TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court has dismissed the application for reference on various grounds, including the fact, that the appellant has failed to prove that he is entitled to compensation for the one Kila of land, treating it to be irrigated land, and on the other ground that the application for reference is barred by time.

(3.) A bare look at the provisions of Section 18 (2), specially its proviso shows, that it contemplates two separate periods of limitation, and gives two separate starting points of limitation, inasmuch as, one starting point is from the date of making of the award, the other is from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12. However, for the first category, the limitation prescribed is six weeks from the date of award, while in the second category, the limitation prescribed is six weeks from the receipt of notice from the Collector, but then, yet outer provision has been made, by providing, "or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire". Thus, by enacting this provision, notwithstanding making the provision, providing limitation of six weeks, an outer limit of time has been prescribed for making application for reference, inasmuch as, even in cases, where the person concerned does not receive any notice from the Collector, under Section 12 (2), and six months expire, or six months expire before expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, still the period, which first expires, i. e. , six weeks from receipt of notice from the Collector, or six months from the date of Collector's award, is the period available for making application for reference. It is a different story that in the present case notice under Section 9 was given to the khatedars, their objections were heard who submitted them in cyclostyle forms then collectively documentary evidence was received and then the award was made. In such circumstances, maximum period of limitation would be six months. In my this view I am fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Poshetty & Ors. vs. State of A. P. (1), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- ". . . . . where he was not present within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under sub section (2) of Section 12 or within six months from the date of Collector's award whichever period shall first expire. In other words the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 18 prescribes the limitation within which the application for reference under sub section (1) of Section 18 is required to be made and failure thereof puts an end of the rights of the claimants to seek a reference under Section 18. This Court has clearly held that communication of the award is not a pre condition. . . . "