Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original landowner Mahadev Sadhu Ingale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15th July 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Sangli, rejecting their application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land acquisition award was made on 15th March 2002 under Section 11 of the Act. On 2nd August 2004, the petitioners received notice under Section 12(2) and accepted compensation without prejudice. On 13th September 2004, they filed an application under Section 18 seeking a reference to the civil court for determination of compensation. However, on 30th March 2019, the petitioners were informed that the papers and proceedings of their application were not traceable in the office of the Deputy Collector. Consequently, they reconstructed the records on 17th June 2019. Despite this, the Deputy Collector rejected the reference application on 15th July 2019, citing delay and stating that the application was filed after 15 years. The petitioners argued that the rejection was without application of mind and in violation of natural justice, as they were not given an opportunity of hearing. The High Court observed that the impugned order did not consider the reconstruction of records or the explanation for delay. The court held that the Collector must consider the application on merits and cannot reject it solely on the ground of delay without affording a hearing. Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Deputy Collector to decide the reference application afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within three months. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Limitation - The Collector must consider the application for reference on merits and cannot reject it solely on the ground of delay without considering the explanation for delay and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Held that the impugned order dated 15th July 2019 rejecting the reference was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 9-10).
B) Land Acquisition - Reconstruction of Records - Duty of Collector - When the original application is lost, the Collector must consider the reconstructed application and decide the reference afresh. Held that the Collector failed to consider the reconstruction of records and the petitioners' explanation for delay (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in rejecting the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of delay without considering the reconstruction of records and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 15th July 2019, and directed the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Sangli, to decide the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within three months from the date of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Reference to Court
- Limitation for Reference
- Duty of Collector to Consider Application on Merits
- Natural Justice
- Non-application of Mind
- Reconstruction of Lost Records
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (02) 82
Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2020
R. D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for Petitioners, Mrs. Rupali M. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (State)
Rangrao Mahadev Ingale and Nanda Rajendra Bhosale (Legal representatives of deceased Mahadev Sadhu Ingale)
The State of Maharashtra and The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Sangli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order rejecting an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 15th July 2019 and direction to allow the application for reference.
Filing Reason
The Deputy Collector rejected the petitioners' application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of delay without considering the reconstruction of records and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 15th March 2002 under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioners received notice under Section 12(2) on 2nd August 2004 and filed an application under Section 18 on 13th September 2004. The application was not traceable, and the petitioners reconstructed the records on 17th June 2019. The Deputy Collector rejected the application on 15th July 2019.
Issues
Whether the impugned order rejecting the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Whether the Deputy Collector was justified in rejecting the reference application solely on the ground of delay without considering the reconstruction of records and the explanation for delay.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Collector failed to consider that the original application was lost and the records were reconstructed, and the delay was not attributable to them.
The State respondents did not oppose the petition and left the matter to the court's discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The Collector must consider the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on merits and cannot reject it solely on the ground of delay without considering the explanation for delay and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The order rejecting the reference was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order dated 15th July 2019 rejecting the reference application is passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Deputy Collector has not considered the fact that the petitioners had reconstructed the papers and proceedings on 17th June 2019 and the explanation for delay.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 15th March 2002 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 2nd August 2004, the petitioners received notice under Section 12(2) and accepted compensation without prejudice. On 13th September 2004, they filed an application under Section 18 for reference. On 30th March 2019, the petitioners were informed that the application was not traceable. They reconstructed the records on 17th June 2019. On 15th July 2019, the Deputy Collector rejected the application. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 11, Section 12(2), Section 18
- Constitution of India: Article 226
