This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a petition questioning the rejection of a late application for reference to the Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court upheld the Single Judge's order, finding the application time-barred.
No costs. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2012
DATED:10.10.2012
Between: Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao and others.
… Appellants
And
The Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O), West Godavari District and others.
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1274 of 2012
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24806 of 2012.
The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge seeking a Mandamus to declare the endorsement dated 21.6.2012 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O), Eluru, the 1st respondent herein, rejecting the application of the appellants for reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquistiion Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to their lands as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the appellants-writ petitioners is that the respondents acquired their lands for the purpose of setting up Auto Nagar. Questioning the acquisition proceedings, it appears, the appellants earlier filed Writ petition No. 5036 of 1994 before this Court on the ground that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not made within time and by order dated 27.8.1999, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 before a Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 23.7.2001, the said writ appeal was allowed by this Court. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the
A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation against the order made in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 and through order dated 1.10.2004, this Court dismissed the said review petition. Subsequently, the matter was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 304 and 305 of 2005 and through order dated 15.9.2011, the said appeals were allowed by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the said order of the Supreme Court, the appellants filed an application dated 17.10.2011 before the 1st respondent herein, seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Act and through order dated 21.6.2012, the 1st respondent rejected the said application. Challenging the same, the appellants filed the aforementioned writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
The Hon’ble Single Judge after taking into consideration Section 18 of the Act and after considering the fact that the Award was passed in the matter in question on 7.1.1998 and that the appellants filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference after a period of two years after the award was passed by the 1st respondent, which is beyond the period prescribed under the Act, dismissed the said writ petition.
Being dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the appellants filed this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and also examined the material on record.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the Supreme Court passed an order on 15.9.2011 upholding the award passed by the respondentauthorities and only thereafter the appellants filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference. As per Section 18 of the Act, the appellants ought to have filed such an application within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the said Award and since the appellants filed the application on 17.10.2011, which is beyond the period prescribed under the Act, the Hon’ble Single Judge
rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants, while declining to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent.
Hence, we are of the view that the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 10.10.2012 pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the average market compensation application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act after six weeks from the date of the impugned award is within the statutory limit.
Whether the High Court Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the rejection of the final award for reference to the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao and others
The Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O), West Godavari District and others
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
