CIVIL APPEAL 1250 of 1998 on 5 October 1998

ORAL JUDGMENT.:

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.DATED : 19th April, 2007.

1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for theparties.

2. This Revision Application has been preferredunder section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (asapplicable in the State of Maharashtra) for challengingthe order dated 5th October 1998 passed by the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer by which an application forreference made by the Petitioner under section 18 of thesaid Act of 1894 has been rejected.

3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner hastaken me through the record of the Revision Applicationand has submitted that considering the period requiredfor obtaining the certified copy of the Award, thereference Application was filed within the stipulated period of limitation. He submitted that the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer has committed an error byrejecting the application for reference.

4. It appears that the notice under section 12(2)of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 7th January 1998.The award was made on 15th September 1997. It is notthe case of the Respondents that the Petitioner waspresent at the time of passing of the award. It isnecessary to refer to the averments made in theApplication for reference. In the first paragraphitself the Petitioner has stated that the notice undersection 12(2) of the said Act of 1894 was received byher in March 1998. The case made out by the Petitioneris that an application was made by her for obtaining thecertified copy of the award on 1st April 1998 and thecertified copy was delivered on 10th August 1998. Thereference application was filed on 10th September 1998.

5. Admittedly the Petitioner received the noticeunder section 12(2) in March 1998. Assuming the date ofservice of notice as 31st March 1998, the applicationfor reference ought to have been filed within the periodof six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice.Therefore, the application for reference was hopelesslybarred by limitation. It is well settled position oflaw that the time required for obtaining certified copy of the award cannot be excluded while computing theperiod of limitation. It is equally well settled thatthere is no power vesting in the Special LandAcquisition Officer to condone the delay in making anapplication under section 18 of the said Act of 1894.

6. In this view of the matter, there is no merit inthe Revision Application. Rule is discharged.

Judge.