Durga Lal and Others vs The State of Rajasthan

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original claimants u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act), against the order dated 29.1.2008, passed by the District Judge, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court), in Reference Case No. 143/2006, whereby the Reference Court has dismissed the Reference made u/s 18 of the said Act on the ground of being barred by limitation.

The short issue which arises in the present appeal is as to whether the Reference Court had rightly rejected the reference made u/s 18 of the said Act on the ground of being barred by limitation. It has been sought to be submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants had submitted a representation on 7.11.2005 to the Collector, after the Award dated 20.9.2005 made by him, and thereafter submitted the application on 6.5.06, for referring the matter to the District Court u/S. 18 of the said Act. According to him, the said representation dated 7.9.2005 should have been considered as the application for referring the matter u/Sec. 18 of the said Act and if the said date is taken for the purpose of limitation, the reference was within the period of six months as contemplated u/s 18 of the said Act.

With regard to the said submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the appellants, it may be stated that as per Section 18 of the said Act, the person interested is required to make a written application to the Collector, that the matter be referred for determination of the Court, for his objections regarding measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The said application has to be made within six weeks from the date of the award made by the Collector, when the person making the application was present before the Collector at the time when the Award was made or within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the collector, if he was not present. In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellants that they were not aware about the award made by the Collector, however according to the Learned Counsel for the appellants, the representation dated 7.11.2005, should have been considered as the application u/S. 18 of the said Act. The said submission can not be accepted for the simple reason that as per the requirement of Section 18(1) of the said Act, the person interested has to make written application stating the grounds of objections and with a specific prayer to the Collector for referring the same to the Court for necessary determination. Admittedly such application was made by the appellants on 6.5.2006 i.e. after the period of six months of the award. The Reference Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly held that the Reference was barred by limitation. There being no illegality in the said impugned order passed by the Reference Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.