- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.07.2009 passed in W.P NO.1271/2009 which is time barred by 95 days. The reason for the delay is not substantiated by the fact stated in the petition yet in the interest of justice we ignored the delay merely to obviate the miscarriage of justice, if any, in so far as the merit of the matter is concerned. This is how we permitted the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2009 passed in W.P NO. 1271/09 by which the writ petition was dismissed holding therein that the petitioner has a remedy of initiating a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which would be the remedy for any person interested who has not accepted the award.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that it is not a case where the petitioner -appellant has not accepted the award but his simple case is that the interest amount has not been properly calculated. However, the counsel has missed that ultimately the amount that had been determined by way of compensation which has been accepted by the appellant obviously has given a cause to raise a grievance that the amount awarded to him is not sufficient and it should have resulted into a higher amount by calculating interest. This part of the dispute also is clearly permissible to be raised under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and hence the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner -appellant has a remedy under Section 18 of the Act. We fully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hence we see no reason to entertain this appeal. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to move an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 and if the same is time barred it is for the concerned authority to overlook or condone the same. But at the same time we deem it appropriate to observe that if the appellant's grievance is only with regard to the error in calculating the amount and no amount is claimed by way of enhancement of compensation but merely a calculation is alleged to have been erroneously done, it is expected of the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 to get the plea of the appellant verified by recalculating the amount and explain the same to the appellant. The appeal is dismissed subject to aforesaid.;