Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Francisco Nicolau Fernandes, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) dated 17th November 2014, which rejected his application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as time-barred. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in properties surveyed under Nos. 78/7 and 77/10 of Village Murda, Merces, Ilhas, Goa, which were subject to acquisition proceedings. He contended that he was never served with notices under Sections 9, 10, or 12 of the Act and only came to know about the acquisition on 12th October 2014. Immediately thereafter, he filed the reference application on 17th November 2014, which he argued was within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge. The LAO, however, rejected the application without considering the petitioner's plea regarding the date of knowledge. The respondents, including the State of Goa and the LAO, submitted that the records indicated no personal service of notices on the petitioner as he was not available. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the LAO had failed to examine the crucial aspect of the petitioner's knowledge of the acquisition. The court noted that in the absence of proper service, the limitation period under Section 18 would run from the date of knowledge. Since the petitioner had filed the application within six weeks of acquiring knowledge, the application was within time. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing the LAO to consider the reference application afresh on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier order. The writ petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Limitation - Date of Knowledge - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - The petitioner claimed he was not served with notices under Sections 9, 10, or 12 of the Act and only came to know of the acquisition on 12th October 2014, filing the reference application on 17th November 2014. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application as time-barred without examining the plea of knowledge. The High Court held that the LAO ought to have considered the date of knowledge pleaded by the petitioner and that the application was within time from that date. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 3-6) B) Land Acquisition - Notice - Service - Effect on Limitation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 9, 10, 12 - The record showed no personal service of notices on the petitioner as he was not available. The court noted that in the absence of proper service, the limitation for seeking reference under Section 18 would run from the date of knowledge. The LAO's failure to consider this aspect rendered the order unsustainable. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as time-barred without considering the petitioner's plea that he had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and that the application was filed within time from the date of knowledge.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 17th November 2014, and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioner's application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 afresh on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier order. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 runs from date of knowledge when no proper service of notice under Sections 9
- 10
- or 12 of the Act
- Land Acquisition Officer must consider plea of knowledge before rejecting application as time-barred
