whether court can condon delay under Land acuisition act after the period of 42 days
(Querist) 01 August 2008
This query is : Resolved
1996 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal is a Division Bench Authoirity K Ramaswami and J.B. Patnaik, JJ and it is held that the provisions of limitation act are not applicable and the reference has to filed to the collector within 42 days. therefore after 1996 the delay is not condoned in Maharashtra. if there is any authority after 1996 of Supereme Court saying that the delay can be condoned under the Land Acquisiton Act for filing reference ? Pls send us the lattest authorities of Supreme Court alongwith the full text.
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at die time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award;
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2); or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.
1997 STPL(LE) 24008 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Appellant VERSUS SHIVABAI AND OTHERS Respondents 1997-AIR(SC)-0-2642 ;1997-SCC-9-710
Civil Appeal No. 3002 of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10314 of 1996)-Decided on 04-04-1997 (From : Andhra Pradesh)
(A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections.18, 18(2), 12(2)- Thus it could be seen that when the parties were present at the time when the award came to be made, the notice under Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 was not necessary. As a consequence, within six weeks from the date of the award an application is required to be made for reference under Section 18. If the amount is received without protest, by operation of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31, such person who has received the amount without protest is not entitled to seek a reference under Section 18.
(B). Shri C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that on the Division Bench's direction to make an enquiry into the matter, the Land Acquisition Officer himself has referred the matter. Unless there is a proof of service of the notice of the award under sub-section (2) of Section 12, the limitation does not start. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. It is now settled law that it is not necessary that the award or its copy should be served on the claimant along with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. If the parties are not present on the date the award came to be passed, then Collector/Land Acquisition Officer shall give immediate notice of his award. The limitation begins to run from the date of the notice as per proviso to Section 18(2). The date of the award and the date of the receipt of the compensation was incidentally the same date. Under these circumstances, it must be presumed that they were present on the date when the award was made and the compensation was received without any protest. Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to seek any reference.
(C). No doubt they had filed the writ petition in the High Court for seeking reference. But the High Court's order was only for making reference on verification and to find out correct factual position. The officer himself was in collusion with the claimants and without making any enquiry he made the reference. Subsequently, some persons were impleaded to the reference. That itself indicates that all was not going well. It is now settled position in law that the claimants who receive the compensation under protest and who make application under Section 18(1), alone are entitled to seek a reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference under Section 18. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference Court is clearly illegal. On appeal, the High Court has not considered all these perspectives and found it co
(Expert) 18 February 2009
The ruling nowhere lays down that the delay can not be condoned at all.
I am myself a practicing lawyer at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
My mother, a resident of Chandigarh had purchased a plot of land way back in 1967 admeasuring 200 sq yds in an East Delhi locality. A sale deed was registered ion my mother's name on 10th March 1967. during that period official work was carred out in Urdu by the Revenue Deptt.
Over the past 3-4 years I am engaged in getting Award money or an alternative plot of land from the Govet of NCT of Delhi/DDA. I have been personally visiting the concerned office and submitted an application under Delhio RTI Act as well but the info supplied is totally incomplete saying that since the record was in Urdu and too old it is not traceable.
As mandatorily required my mother did not receive any notice from the LA Deptt/DDA stating that the lane is being acquired by the Govt. Is the case is beyond limitation now? What can be done to retrieve the plot of land or the awarded compensation?
I am the POA holder of my mother who is aged 78 yrs now.
You have not reecieved the Notices under Land acquisition Act , subject to law of limiatiosn , you can file Writ Petition directing the LAO/Local Body/Govt to pass award and pay compensation to you or deliver alternative Plot to you .