A.L. Bahri, J.@mdashIn this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for a direction to respondent No. 2, Land
Acquisition Collector, to make reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge, by quashing his order dated April 17, 1984
(Annexure P.3).
2. Some land of the petitioners was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on May 11, 1983, Objections u/s 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act were filed on October 17, 1983. However, vide Annexure P.3, the petitioners were communicated the order of the Land
Acquisition Collector dated April 19, 1984 that the application was filed as time-barred. The case of the petitioners is that they were not present at
the time of announcement of the award. No notice u/s 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to them and thus their objection/application to
make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was within time and Land Acquisition Collector did not issue any notice to them before
passing the impugned order. These allegations are supported by affidavit of Sukhvinder Singh, one of the petitioners. Although the respondents are
represented, no reply to the petition has been filed controverting the allegations of the petitioners as referred to above. The relevant records
concerning the case have also not been produced. That being the position, the allegations levelled in the petition are taken as established.
3. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:-
18. 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 award, whichever period shall first expire.
4. Since in the present case, the petitioners were not present or represented at the time the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award nor
they were served with any notice u/s 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, in their case they could present the application u/s 18 of the Act within six
months from the date of the Collector''s award and the petition could not be dismissed as barred by time.
5. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Collector did not issue any notice before passing the impugned
order dated April 16, 1984, as communicated to the petitioners vide Annexure P.3 dismissing the application as time-barred. There is force in this
contention. J.V. Gupta J. in Civil Revision No. 1899 of 1983 Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana C.R. No. 1899 of 1983 relying upon the earlier
decision of this Court in Suraj Mal v. State of Haryana 1985 P.L.J. 212 held that before deciding the reference application u/s 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the claimants were entitled to a notice by the Collector After holding as above a direction was given to the Land Acquisition
Collector to make reference to the District judge concerned. The impugned order as communicated to the petitioners vide Annexure P.3 is also
liable to be quashed on this ground as well.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted with costs which are assessed at Rs. 100/-. Order, Annexure P.3, quashed. A
Direction is given to the Land Acquisition Collector, Pachkula, respondent No. 2, to make today. The question of limitation, if any raised on behalf
of the respondents will also be decided by the District Judge.