IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 50 of 2002 Reserved on.: 19.6.2008 Date of decision: 27.8.2008 Chatro Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) on 7.5.1982 intending to acquire large area of the land measuring 92-8 bighas situated in Mohal Kamandi, H.B. No. 36, Tehsil Salooni, Disttt. Chamba, H.P. for the purpose of Chamera Hydro Electric Power Project. It is not disputed that this area included land measuring 32 -5 bighas stated to be in the possession of the present petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 16.9.1993. When the award was announced the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. present. This land is stated to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner along with respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Collector on 21st July, 2001 praying that reference be made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The allegations made in this petition were that their predecessor-in-interest Beeru was coming in possession of the land measuring 42-3 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 598, 605 and 617 situate in Mohal Kamandi, Pargana Bhalei, Tehsil Salooni, Disttt. Chamba, H.P. for many years and after the death of Beeru the petitioners were in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that they had become owner of the land by adverse possession. In support of the claim, the petitioners annexed the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1961-62, 1965-66, 1970-71, 1975-76, 1980-81 and 1990-91 to show that they were always shown in unauthorized possession of the land. Out of this land, 32 bighas 5 biswas was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the Chamera Hydro Electric Power Project and since the amount of compensation had not been paid but deposited vide Section 31, the claimants prayed that a reference be made under Section 30 of the Act to the Court. This application has been rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the application made more than seven years after the award cannot be entertained and that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to file a suit in the competent Court of law to establish their right. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners have come to this Court. This court in RSA No. 200 of 2003 has dealt with a similar question in great detail. After considering all the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the various judgements, especially the judgements of the Supreme Court in Dr.G.H.Grant vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 237 and Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 128, this Court held as follows:- “On a close scrutiny of the various provisions of the act and the judgements cited here-in-above, it is apparent that a person who has appeared in the reference proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector or who has received notice of filing of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act can only apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. He cannot apply for a reference under Section 30. As is clear from reading of Section 18 as well as the law laid down, under Section 18, all objections of the interested parties relating to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amongst persons interested can be referred to the Collector. There is a general misconception that Section 18 relates only to enhancement of compensation and reference for apportionment can only be made under Section 30. This misconception is totally ill-founded. Under Section 18 the persons interested can object to the award on any of the grounds aforesaid and the Collector is bound to make a reference in case the reference has been sought within the time prescribed by law. The right to make a reference under Section 30 can be exercised suo-motu by the Land Acquisition Collector when the proceedings are pending before him. He may assess the compensation or value of the land. Thereafter, he may hold that intricate and complicated question of law relating to the title of the persons interested are involved and refer the matter to the Court under Section 30. However, in case he does not do so, and proceeds to apportion the amount between the parties interested those who were present before him, or who have received notice of the filing of the award must seek a reference within the period of the limitation prescribed under Section 18. Reference under Section 30 can, however, be sought by other persons which may include the persons interested, who were neither present before the Land Acquisition Collector nor have been served with notice of the filing of the award. Their right in the acquired property may be a pre-existing right or a right which may have accrued after making of the award. It is also apparent from the aforesaid judgements that whereas the Collector is bound to make a reference under Section 18, if sought for within time, there is no such obligation on the Collector to make such a reference under Section 30 of the Act. This discretion, however, has to be in accordance with the well established norms and power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In case the Collector refuses to make a reference under Section 30, the aggrieved party can either approach the writ Court for quashing of the decision of the Collector and seek a direction that the Collector be directed to refer the matter or in the alternative the party aggrieved can straight way file a suit to establish his right.” In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioners were represented before the Land Acquisition Collector and they were aware of the award. It is, therefore, apparent that they were not entitled to file a petition under Section 30 nor were they entitled to file a suit. Their only remedy was to file a petition under Section 18 of the Act. No such petition has been filed though the period of limitation has expired since long. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. 27th August, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™