Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Mariyamma, was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.39 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas situated at Pura Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for establishing an industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The petitioner contended that she had not consented to the award and sought a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, rejected her application in LA Mis.No.31/2006 vide order dated 21.03.2013, holding that the application was barred by limitation. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly sub-section (2) which prescribes different limitation periods depending on whether the person concerned has consented to the award. The Court noted that the petitioner had not consented to the award, and therefore the limitation period of six weeks from the date of the Collector's award under Section 18(2)(b) would apply. The Court found that the petitioner had made the application within the prescribed period and that the Civil Judge had erred in rejecting it on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Civil Judge to consider the reference application afresh on its merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference to Court - Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation - The petitioner, owner of acquired land, contended she did not consent to the award determining compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The Civil Judge rejected her application for reference as barred by limitation. The High Court held that since the petitioner had not consented to the award, the limitation period under Section 18(2)(b) would apply, which requires the application to be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. However, the Court found that the petitioner had made the application within time and the Civil Judge erred in rejecting it. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to court on the ground of delay, when the petitioner had not consented to the award.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 21.03.2013 in LA Mis.No.31/2006, and directed the Civil Judge to consider the reference application afresh on its merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18(3)(b)
- Reference to Court
- Limitation
- Consent to Award
- Computation of Limitation
