LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. SURESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the award made by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Reference Case No. 1 of 1993. The first part of the challenge is that application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) was entertained directly by the District Judge which was not in accordance with law and that it should have been made through the Land Acquisition Collector. The second ground of challenge is that the reference is barred by limitation. The precise ground taken therein is that the application has been filed by the claimants before the Additional District Judge on 26.3.1993, i.e. after a period of 1/1 1/2 years of the making of the award.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Collector, Modasa and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 3464 and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 440 . According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, application under Section 18 of the Act has to be made within six months from the date when the claimant derived knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. (The case of an award made in the presence of parties is different). To similar effect is the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Laxuman AIR 2006 SC 24 .

(3.) THE submissions made on behalf of the State cannot be accepted as there are neither any pleadings nor evidence on record to show the factum of acquisition of knowledge of the making of the award by the claimants or service of notice under Section 12 of the Act or communication of the date of announcement of the award. It is not sufficient to say that cognizance of the application is barred by Section 18 of the Act without pleading and proving the case before the Court below. The factual matrix has to be pleaded and proved. Such a plea not having been raised, there being no evidence on record, the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General deserves to be rejected.