AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—Though this matter is posted for orders, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.2.2009 passed in LAC Misc. No. 83/2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Bhadravathi, whereby his application filed u/s 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the order impugned shows that the application u/s 18(3)(b) was not filed within 90 days from the date of service of the award notice. That is why the application was dismissed. In State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman, , the Apex Court has held that an application u/s 18(3)(b) can be made to the Court within a period of 3 years of the expiry of 90 days from the date of application u/s 18(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment as under:--
Although, no tune-limit for applying to the court in terms of Section 18(3)(b) is fixed by the statute, since the application is to the court, though under a special enactment, Article 137, the residuary Article of the Limitation Act, 1963, is attracted and the application has to be made within three years of the expiry of 90 days from the date of application u/s 18(1) of the Act made by the claimant. The remedy of approaching the court u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act gets extinguished on the expiry of the said period.
No materials are forthcoming as to whether the petitioner has filed the application within the aforesaid period. It is also not clear as to whether the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. I am of the view that the trial court has to reconsider the matter.
The writ petition is allowed in part. The order dated 24.2.2009 passed in LAC Misc. No. 83/2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Bhadravathi, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. Petitioners is permitted to file an application seeking condonation of delay, if so advised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 18,286/- was deposited before this Court under receipt No. 43805/12 towards court fee on the assumption that MFA has to be filed against the impugned order. He has filed an application-I.A. No. 1/2013 seeking direction to refund the said amount. Since no appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order as it was not maintainable, the Registry has to refund the amount of Rs. 18,286/- deposited under receipt No. 43805/12. Registry is directed to issue a cheque for the aforesaid sum in favour of the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services committee forthwith. IA-1/13 is accordingly allowed. No costs.