- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29-9-95 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nagar Mahapalika), Allahabad, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), wherein the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act and refused to make a reference to the court. The impugned order is very short and reads as under: "perused the opinion of the D. G. C. (Civil), reference is time barred and hence rejected".
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the land of the petitioner measuring only 12 biswas, i. e. 1632 sq. yards in plot No. 419 situated at the revenue estate of village Kasari Masari, district Allahabad, was covered by a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 13-7-90 and in respect of which declaration under Section 6 of the Act and been issued on 20-8-90. THE petitioner was dispossessed by the respondent No. 2 on 12-11-90 by resorting to the provision of urgency clause enshrined in Section 17 of the Act. THE petitioner was awarded 80% or the estimated value of the land as required under Section 17 (3-A) of the Act but some persons raised the dispute regarding the title of the petitioner and the matter was referred to the District Judge under Section 31 (2) of the Act for reference vide order dated 23-2-91 of the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). THE reference court decided the dispute of the ownership in L. A. R. No. 53/91, Smt. Bimal Kumari v. Hamid Ali and Anr. vide its order dated 8-8-95 in favour of the petitioner and she was paid the entire disputed amount (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). The petitioner filed the objections on 16-8-95 under Section 10 of the Act for assessing the market value of her plot before the respondent No. 2 and at that particular point of time she came to know that the award under Section 11 of the Act had already been delivered on 12-10-92. The petitioner submitted the application on 21-8-95 before respondent No. 2 to refer the matter for reference to the court under Section 18 of the Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). The contention of the petitioner had been that she had never been given any notice of the award dated 12-10-92 and she came to know about it only on 16-8-95 and the limitation for making the reference should start only from the date of' knowledge. However, as stated above, the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 29-9-95 rejected the case of the petitioner.
(3.) IT is settled law that making a reference under Section 18 (2) of the Act the Land Acquisition Collector passes an administrative order, it is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function and thus the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not attracted at all. In Officers on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) andanr. v. Shah Mani Lal Chandu Lal Etc. , 1996 (2) JT 278, 1996 (2) JCLR 153 (SC) ; 1996 JIR 447 (SC) the Supreme Court after considering a large number of cases particularity Md. Hasmuddin v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (2) SCC 572 ; State of Punjab andanr. v. Satinderbir Singh, 1995 (3) SCC 330 :1995 (1) JCLR 508 (SC); Kaushalya Rani v. Copal Singh, AIR 1964 (SC) 260, Smt. Sushila Devi v. Ramanadan Prasad and Anr. , 1976 (1) SCC 361 and P. V. Gadgil v. P. V. Deshpandey, AIR 1983 Bom 342, reached the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Collector does not have the power to condone the delay as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not attracted.;