G.S.Sistani, J. - (1.) With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing for disposal. As per the writ petition, the petitioner had purchased a plot bearing No. 34 and 34A measuring 225 sq. yards out of Khasra No.5/7/2, 8, 13, 14/2 and 17/2 situated at Village Nangloi Jat, Delhi in the estate abadi known as Friends Enclave, Sector-7, Delhi from the Bhumidar on 13.06.1974.
(2.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 15.05.1978, Section 6 declaration was made on 06.01.1979 and thereafter an Award was rendered on 28.01.1980. Reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, was made by the Collector on 04.09.1980. Notices were issued to the interested persons including the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the reference was decided after a period of 36 years. Vide judgment dated 02.07.2016, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the aforesaid plot of land. On 09.01.2017, the petitioner made a claim for enhancement of compensation. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 15.01.2018 has rejected the application being barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted and thus the order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 15.01.2018 is liable to be set aside. Counsel relies on decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shanti Devi & Ors vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 10039/2016 dated 30.11.2017 wherein this Court has highlighted that principles of natural justice should be followed and hence the order rejecting the application on the grounds of limitation was set aside and an opportunity of hearing was granted.
(3.) Ms Jyoti Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the LAC, submits that petitioner had participated in 30-31 proceedings and was thus aware of the passing of the award and the contents thereof and thus the application under Section 18 filed by the petitioner is blatantly barred by limitation.;