MAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Maya Devi, landowner, has directed this revision petition against the order dated 21st August, 1975 of the Land Acquisition Collector, dismissing her application for making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), to the Court of the District Judge. This order will also dispose of Civil Misc No. 086-CII of 1980 for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

(2.) Regarding the condonation of delay in filing this revision petition, it transpires that the Land Acquisition Collector had passed the impugned order on 21st August, 1975, in the absence of the landowner and that it was never communicated to her. Ultimately, this order came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 26th March, 1980 after inspection of the file through her counsel. Thus, it was contended that the limitation would start running from the date of knowledge. She filed an affidavit of her general Attorney Raja Ram Nagpal in this regard. In the return filed by the respondents, it was contended that the revision is barred by time as the order dated 2st August, 1975 of the Land Acquisition Collector was conveyed to the petitioner vide memo No. PK-1/ 1872 dated 12th September, 1975 under registered cover The remaining allegations of the petitioner were also contorverted. Aforesaid Raja Ram Nagpal, general Attorney of the petitioner was also allowed to file additional affidavit, wherein he alleged of having come to Chandigarh on 5th October, 1978 for enquiring the fact of the above referred application under section 18 of the Act, but the Land Acquisition Collector did not permit him to inspect the file and ultimately the inspection Lion was allowed on 20th November, 1978 but he failed to detect the impugned order of the Collector on the acquisition file. He then went back to Fazilka and again came to contact an Advocate at Chandigarh on 26th March, 1980, who inspected the file and located the impugned order. There after, this revision petition was filed only the same day. The respondent has not filed any counter affidavit to rebut the allegations of the petitioner in the additional affidavit, Strange enough, in the return filed by the respondents it has not been specifically alleged whether the acknowledgement receipt of the registered letter was received by the office of the Collector or that the registered letter was actually delivered to the petitioner Under these circumstances there is no option but to conclude that the petitioner came to know of the impugned order on 26th March, 1980 for the first time and if that is so, there there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing this petition, as the limitation will start running from the date of knowledge and not earlier.

(3.) Regarding the merits of the revision petition, the relevant facts are that land measuring 30 Kanals 10 Marlas is belongin to Darbar Chand, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 located in the revenue estate of village Painchawali was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 3rd August, 1973 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extra-ordinary on 6th August, 1973, under section 4 of the Act for the purposes of construction of a rew Mandi of Fazilka. Aforesaid Darbar Chand, the original landowner of the land died on 3rd April, 1973. i.e. even before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. No notice under section 9 of the Act was issued to the 1egal-heirs of the aforesaid Darbar Chand, but the record reveals that such a notice was issued to Darbar Chand and served by the Revenue Patwari on 17th August, 1973 on Dina Nath described as Karinda of Darbar Chand. It was further averred, that the aforesaid Dina Nath had nothing to do with the present petitioners. The Collector gave the award on 11th December, 197 , assessing the amount of compensation of the acquired land of Darbar Chand at Rs. 44913,20. Thus it was contended that the award against a dead person was a nullity. It was further maintained that no notice under section 12(2) of the Act was ever received by the petitioners, but the record reveals that presumably such notice was served by Shamsher Singh Patwari on 21st January, 1974 upon aforesaid Dina Nath after making a report that Darbar Chand was not found present at his house- Aforesaid Dina Nath being neither a Mukhtiar nor a Karinda of Darbar Chand, the above service of notice was not valid. The petitioners learnt about the pronouncement of the award through a rumour and then after ascertaining the date of the impugned award, they filed an application on 3rd February, 1974, for making a reference under section 18 of the Act through their counsel Shri Subhash Chander Jasuja. This publication was received in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector on 16th May, 1974. This application was rejected on 21st August, 1975 by the Land Acquisition Collector vide his impugned order, being barred by time. Thus, it was averred that the award against a dead person was a nullity in the eye of law and that the limitation for filing reference under section 18 of the Act would start running from the date of knowledge. In the return filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it was asserted that the application was rightly dismissed being barred by time, as it was filed after five years of the passing of the impugned order.