IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDCIATURE AT BILASPUR 3mm Banal? i W, , PPELLANT fanesh Ram aged about 45 years S/o - Mangal Das, R/o Village Hardidih, (CHHATTISGARHJ FIRST APPEAL No. M g /2006 A G / Tahsil Jaijaipur Distt. Jagir Champa C.G Versus Rspondents . 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Janjgir Champa Land Acquition officer,-Hasdeo Bango Pariyojna, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa APPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION v" ACT nj é ’ is HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 'BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra L. First Appeal No.48 of 2006 Ganesh Ram Appellant verSUS Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act JUDGMENT r (Delivered on ll’i" Augu$t, 2010) The present appeal under Section 54 of‘the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the holder of land, whose Iand admeasuring 0.188 hectare at Village Hardidih, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa has been acquired for construction of minor canal by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Chhattisg‘arh. 2. In the land acquisition proceedings bearing Land Acquisition Case No.413/A-82/02-03 an award was passed on assessing compensation at Rs.2,65,000/— per hectare treating the land as unirriga’ted. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Ofncer/Collector\(l:and i, Acquisition), moved a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which ‘k/ was sent to the District Court for adjudication. ’ (35 3. In the Court ‘below, contention of the appellant was that his acquired Iand was irrigated, however, the compensation has been . / assessed by treating the Iand as unirrigated causing him a Ioss of Rs.50,000/—. The Land Acquisition Officer had contended that the reference application is barred by limitation and that in the absence of any proof submitted by the appellant at the time of land acquisition proceedings, the land has rightly been treated as unirrigated and that the amount of compensation awarded is fair, reasonable and in accordance with law. 4. The reference Court, while answering issue No.1, has found that the land belonging to the appellant is irrigated and the Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in calculating the compensation. The market value of the land has been assessed by the reference Court at Rs.3,97,500/- per hectare, however, the reference has been decided against the appellant as the application under Section 18 of the Act was barred by limitation. 5. The State has not preferred any cross-objection objecting to the merits of the order whereby the reference Court has found the Iand belonging to the appellant was irrigated. 6. Since no appeal or cross-objection has been tiled bywthe State, this Court is only required to examine whether the reference .w-‘I‘i application preferred by the appellant was within time or was barred by V l limitation. 3 7. Admittedly, the award was prepared and proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24-9-2003, which was approved by the jurisdictionai Collector on 1-10-2003. The appellant appears to have moved the application under Section 18 of the Act on 17-5-2005, which has been treated to be barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. 8. On perusal of the record, it would appear that the appellant has moved another application (EXP-19) on 29—12-2003, which carries signature of the Receipt Clerk along with the seal of the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo Bango Project. The application is signed by the appellant Ganesh Ram. ln the application, it has been mentioned that the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has prepared the'award by treating his land as unirrigated, which is not proper and that his land is irrigated. lt appears that no action was taken on this application for making reference to the District Court though the award was approved on 1-10-2003. It is true that in the earlier application also, it is not mentioned as to on which date the appellant became aware of the contents of the award, however, since'the application dated 29—12- 2003 was presented within 12 weeks, i.e., in less than 6 months from the date of the award it is within limitation because the record does not contain any document to the effect that the appellant was present at the time of passing of the award or was served with a notice under ’ Section 12(2) of the Act so that it can be said that even the first application should have been preferred within 6 weeks from the date of the award. ,4- jr‘x/ 9 . In View of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the appellant having moved objection regarding the inadequacy of the compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer on 29-12-2003 vide Ex.P—10, he was not at fault if his application was not treated as an application/request for referring the matter to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference is, thus, treated as within limitation. 10. The reference Court/District Court has already found that the land belonging to the appellant was irrigated and that the market value of the land should have been taken at Rs.3,97,500/— per hectare. The State/respondents have not filed reply nor has argued that the said finding is perverse, therefore, the said hnding has become final. 11. The appellant is entitled to compensation by treating his land as irrigated land having market value of Rs.3,9],500/—’per hectare. 12. The instant first appeal, thus, succeeds and is allowed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall re-assess the compensation on the basis of finding arrived at by the reference Court on issues No.1, 2 and 3 in the impugned order and shall grant compensationto the appellant by re—assessing the amount in accordance therewith. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal 1