Allowed

Manisha and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2011CR/5900/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 of the Constitution of India / Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Held: It is beyond the jurisdiction of a Land Acquisition Collector to reject an application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 on the ground of limitation. The Collector went beyond the scope of jurisdiction by adjudicating upon the limitation issue. The Collector is directed to refer the application to the District Judge within one month for adjudication. The impugned dismissal order is set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.07.2011 is set aside and the Collector directed to make the reference to the District Judge Rohtak within one month.

Manisha and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5900 of 2011 --1--

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 5900 of 2011 Date of decision. 26.09.2011

¶4

Smt. Manisha and another .... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶8

Present: Mr.N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

¶10

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

¶11

The short point for consideration in this revision petition brought by Smt. Manisha and another under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak could dismiss the application filed by the land owner under the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984(for short 'the Act') , with the prayer for making reference to learned District Judge, Rohtak for enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land.

¶12

The impugned order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, as mentioned by the petitioners, can be re-produced as under:-

¶13

Civil Revision No. 5900 of 2011 --2--

¶14

“Today land of Smt. Manisha w/o Madan and Smt. Permeshwari w/o Mukhraj resident of Suneharikhurd vide award no.26 dated 16.3.2011 vide khewat no.67 killa no.33/21, 34/14/2-17-24, 41/4, 42/1 total measuring 44 kanal was acquired and its appeal under section 18 of the Act, was to file under its limitation with in 42 days meaning thereby upto 28.04.2011 but today on 21.7.2011 there is delay of 83 days, so in view of section 18 of the Act is hereby dismissed.”

¶15

The Land Acquisition Collector has declined to make a reference under section 18 of the Act for the only reason that the application for the same has been filed with a delay of 83 days. The sole question for determination is as to whether the Land Acquisition Collector has the jurisdiction to reject the application on the ground of limitation. The answer to the same has to be given in the negative. This question has been decided earlier in many cases reported as Dharampal v. Collector Land Acquisition Urban Development, Punjab SAS Nagar (Mohali), 1987 PLJ 263 and Pali Ram and others v. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Panchkula, 1994(3) Latest Judicial Reports 359 wherein it has been laid down that it is totally beyond the jurisdictional scope of the Land Acquisition Collector to reject a reference under section 18 of the Act being barred by limitation. It is further laid down therein that it is for the reference court i.e. The District Judge to look into this aspect and adjudicate upon the

¶16

Civil Revision No. 5900 of 2011

¶17

--3--

¶18

issues arising out of the said reference including the one of limitation. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak went beyond the scope of his jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act by taking upon itself the duty of adjudicating upon the issue of limitation.

¶19

Consequently, I find the order dismissing the reference under section 18 of the Act to be illegal. The order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, is set aside. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, is directed to make reference of the application filed by the petitioners to the court of learned District Judge, Rohtak for adjudication within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶21

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 26.09.2011 dinesh

Manisha and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Guljar Singh and Ors.

Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs Rameshwar

Bahal Singh and Ors. Vs Shamsher Singh and Ors.

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs Nitin Andors.

Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs Blajinder Kaur & Anr.

Murti Devi and Ors. Vs Balbir and Anr.