GIRVAR DAYAL PANDAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING quashing of order contained in letter dated 04.10.2012, allegedly made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, for construction of Mahila Industrial Training Institute at Kinamar, land was acquired by the respondent -State of Jharkhand and an award was prepared. A notice dated 30.05.2012 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner made an application on 07.06.2012 raising objection with respect to measurement and inadequacy of compensation. The award was prepared on 15.03.2012 and vide order dated 04.10.2012, the request of the petitioner for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed.

(3.) A perusal of the materials on record indicates that the award was prepared on 15.03.2012 and a notice dated 30.05.2012 was issued to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 02.06.2012. It is an admitted position that the award was modified on 20.07.2012 but the amount of compensation etc. remained the same and the modified Award has not provided a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the date of modified Award dated 20.07.2012, the application dated 29.08.2012 would be within time, is liable to be rejected. The application dated 07.06.2012 submitted by the petitioner was not the application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a limitation of six weeks from the date of the Collector's award which, the petitioner has failed to submit. It is well settled that in so far as, the limitation prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned, the statutory authorities have no power to condone the delay. The statutory limitation provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in absence of an analogous provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be condoned by the statutory authorities. In "Parsotambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat through Dy. Collector Modasa and Another" reported in : (2005) 7 SCC 431, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that,