Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yoginder Singh Vikram Dev vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 November, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
C.R. No. 6376 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 6376 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.11.2010
Yoginder Singh Vikram Dev
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present : Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana
for the respondent - State
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Present petition is filed challenging order dated 24.2.2009 passed by District Revenue Officer/Land Acquisition Sirsa thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in moving application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Undisputedly, award was passed by the Competent Court on 1.9.2007, however, application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was moved by the petitioner before the Collector on 3.12.2008.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Tota Ram vs. State of U.P. And others, 1997(6) Supreme Court Cases 280 has held that limitation to move an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would start from the date of award of the Court and C.R. No. 6376 of 2009 (O&M) 2 not from the date of knowledge of the award.
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sukhdeo and others vs. State of of U.P. And others, AIR 1992 Allahabad 142 in paragraph No. 12 has held as under:-
"12. It appears that the petitioners invoked the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act under a mistaken legal advice. It is now well settled that the word 'Court' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act signifies a 'Court' in stricto sensu. In Sakuru v. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279, relying upon the 3 earlier decisions, it is held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply only to proceedings in 'Courts' and not to appeal or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi judicial Tribunals or executive authorities notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure. The inclusion of the proviso in Section 28-A by the Parliament also indicates that the aforesaid legal position has been accepted."
From the dictum of the Allahabad High Court, I have no hesitation to hold that application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is always moved before the Land Acquisition Collector and office of Land Acquisition Collector can not be termed as Court. I have no hesitation to hold that provision of Limitation Act are applicable only in the Courts and have no application in a C.R. No. 6376 of 2009 (O&M) 3 proceeding under Section 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Since Land Acquisition Collector is not a Court, hence, Collector has absolutely no jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, in moving the application under Section 28-A of the Act. Moreover, application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was field after expiry of one year from the date of award which is apparently hopelessly time barred.
No interference is called for.
Dismissed.
(ALOK SINGH) 08.11.2010 JUDGE reena