G.K. Misra, C.J.@mdashThe disputed lands which were acquired constitute 1.13 acres in plot No. 77 and Order 62 acre in plot No. 78 in village Ekatali, P.S. Jharsuguda, in the district of Sambalpur. These lands originally belonged to one Adhar Chandra Sarkar, the husband of opposite party No. 3. Petitioner''s case is that Adhar sold these lands by a registered sale deed to him on 16-1-1957 and his name was mutated on 11.8-1958. Adhar died on 5-6-1952. On 18.2.1967 notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) to acquire the aforesaid lands was issued and on award was made on 26-5-1967. Under the award Rs. 450.70 P. was to be paid as compensation to the Petitioner in respect of plot No. 77 and Rs. 260.93 P. to Adhar Chandra Sarkar in respect of plot No. 78. No notices u/s 9(3) or 12(2) of the Act were served on either, the Petitioner or Adhar Chandra Sarkar. On 12th January, 1972 the Petitioner heard that there was such on award, tie accordingly applied to the Land Acquisition Officer on 14-1-1972 for information regarding the award and the exact position 9� the land acquisition proceeding. He received a letter on 27-1.1972 from the Land Acquisition Officer asking him to apply for certified copy of the award. The Petitioner obtained certified copy and filed on application u/s 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Officer for making a reference to the District Judge. This application was rejected on 17-4-1973. It is against this order that the civil revision has been filed.
2. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner contended that the Land Acquisition Officer exercised his jurisdiction illegally in rejecting the application for reference by holding that it was barred by limitation.
3. By Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act a revision lies against the order of the Collector refusing to make a reference.
Section 18(3) runs thus:
Any order made by the Collector on application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In
4. The Land Acquisition Officer after going through the materials on record has recorded a finding that notes were not served u/s 9(3) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 is as follows:
The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue-district in which the land is situate.
The service of notice under this sub-section is mandatory and not directory. The language is very clear. Non-service of such notice does not affect the interest of the persons to be served with such notices.
5. Similarly, u/s 12(2) of the Act the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. In Shyamsundernath Sutlo v. The State of Orissa and Collector of Cuttack 22 (1956) C.L.T. 79, a Bench of this Court held that such notices are mandatory and not directory.
6. On the finding recorded in this case by the Land Acquisition Officer these mandatory: notices were not served on the Petitioner.
7. The main question for consideration is whether in the aforesaid circumstances the application for reference made u/s 18 is barred by limitation. Section 18 enacts as follows:
13. Reference to Court (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the 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.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award;
(b) in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12, Sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector''s a award, whichever period shall first expire.
Clause (a) of Section 18(2) has no application to this case as the Petitioner was not present or represented before the Collector at the time when the award was made. The first part of Clause (b) of Section 18(2) has also no application as no notice was served on the Petitioner u/s 12(2) of the Act.
8. If at all the Petitioner''s case would come within the ambit of the second part of Clause (b) of Section 18(2). The scope and ambit of this clause is no longer res integra. It is concluded by
9. According to the Petitioner''s affidavit he came to hear about the award on 12-1-1972 and more specifically about it when he got certified copy of the award before 15-2-1972. The application for reference u/s 18(1) was made on 15-2.1972 and clearly within six months of the knowledge of the award. The application was, therefore, not barred by limitation. The Land Acquisition Officer exercised his jurisdiction illegally in rejecting the application for reference on the ground of limitation. It is now well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that the question of rejecting a case on the ground of limitation relates to non-exercise of jurisdiction which the Land Acquisition Officer had and Section 115 of the CPC fully applies to such a case.
10. In the result, the impugned order of the Land Acquisition Officer is set aside and he is directed to make a reference u/s 18(1) of the Act. The civil revision is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/-.
