- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard.
(2.) ORIGINAL petitioner Shankar Lal Sah filed this writ petition in the year 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the following reliefs : "i) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 31-3-86 passed by respondent No. 1; ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to refer the case for determination of compensation u/s 18 of the Act; iii) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notifications issued under Sec tion 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisitioin Act; iv) any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled to; v) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. " During the pendency of the writ petition, Shankar Lal Sah died and his legal representatives Madan Lal Sah; Mahesh Lal Sah and Mukul Sah were allowed to be substituted vide order dated 08-0/-1991. The petitioner's application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisi tion Act was dismissed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital vide order dated 2/-04-1987 (Annexure 5), as the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks from the service of the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act.
(3.) MR. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Special Land Acquisi tion Officer erred is dismissing the pe titioner's application filed under Section 18 of the Act without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the application under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Standing Counsel for the re spondents, on the other hand, sup ported the impugned order and con tended that as the Special Land Acqui sition Officer had no power to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 18 of the Act.;