:**»<-.' ;'"' IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH BILASPUR i FIRSTAPPEAL fM) N0. LM^ OF 2009 APPELLANT : PLAINTTFF Bedram S/0 Jatiram 6abel, aged about 52 years, R/0 Village- bholnar, Tahsil- Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through &EFENDANTS Collector, Distrit- Janjgir Champa, (C.6.) .<••• f1>*» o. ' - -^' K^- 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) A-' MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISrriON ACT. 1894 READ WTTH SECTION96 OF THE CODE OF CTVIL PROCEDURE. HSGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARHAT BtLASPUR Sjngle_Bencb^Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeat (Wl»No. 28 of 2009 B«lram Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another. ORDER Postforo4-(»-2010. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \!i -^T" •f-w^.,-''^ •.••'-as'SsS'^Si^*?" <*~--ty ^' \- '"'"" •V,-.-..-'-sf -A were imgated, is perverse and has been arrived at by misreading of evidence. (6) Before entering into the merits of the matter this Court woutel examine the questton as to whether the application preferred by the appetlant was within limitation or not ? $7) The recorel of Land Acquisitton case contains appellant's spplication dated 10-06-2003 whteih was referred to the District Court by the Land Acquisition OTficer on 07-<%-2(X)8. There is anottier af^ilication fiied by the appellant whteh he moved before the Land Acquisitton Officer on 02-05-2008. The first applteation dated 10-06-2003 cannrt be treated as an apptication under Section 18 because the award teelf was passed in the month of October, 2SM4 le. after one year and four months of the apptication dated 10-06-2003. The appellant's another apptication was submitted on 02-05-2008. (8) Section 18(2) of the Act provides that an application under sub Section (1) of Sectton 18 shall be made within sw. weete from the date of Coltector's award, if the pereon making it was present or represented before the Coltector at the time when he made his award and in other cases, the application can be made within six weeks of the recei|ri of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) or within six months fiom the date of the Collector's anward, whkshever period shall first eiyire. From the record it does not appear that the appellant was pr^ent at the time when awaret was made. tt is atso not reflected from the record that any notice under Section 12(2) was rTCeived foy the appellant. Thus the appetlant could have moved an applteation within sb( months from the date of Cotlector's award. >* '<& *»^ '^< ~-i..^^t -s- (9) In the matter of Bhagwan Das and Offiers Vs. State of £War Pradesh and Others reported in 2010(3) SCC 5.45the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the award is rart made in the presence of pereon interested he can make application vwthin six months frwn the date on whteh he actuatly or construct'ivety came to know about the cwrtents of the award. tn para 30 of the report it is observed that when a person interested makes an apptteation for reference seekiT^ the benefrt of sb< months' pertod from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or tiis representative) was n<A present when the award was made, that he did not receive any nottee under Secfion 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the Iwowledge of the contents of the award dunng a period of six months prtor to the fitir^ the a lication ^or reference. This onus is dischar^d by a^ertir^ these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initia! onus is diasharged by the ctaimanVpereon interestect, it is for the Land AcquisilKm Officer / Cottector to establish that the person interested was present wShw in pereon or throigh his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. (10) This Court shall now examine the applicatiwi moved by the claimant on 02-05-2Q( to ascertain as to the averments made by the appellant about the knowledge. On penisat of this appli(ati<m it woukl appear that the appellant has nrt at all stated about the date of knowledge of the contents of the award during a periwl of six months prior to the filing of the application for reference. In his statement before \ Vthe Court atso the appeltant has nrt made any statement about the date '^S-s sis!-^.: ^ 9 -^1- of knowledge. On the confrary he has made statement fhat he has received the amount of compensation but could nrt state the exact date of receipt of the amount. (11) Thus, apptying ttie principle taid down by the Hm'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bftagwan Das and Othere Vs. State of UBar Pradesh andl Ofhers (supra) it is found that the appellant has failed to dtecharge the initial burden and thus it is apparent that the application under Section 18 of the Act preferred by the appellant was barred by limitation. Ttie learned Court below has not committed any error of law by holciing that the application for reference preferred by the appetlant was barred by limitation. Since the appttoation under Sectton 18 of the Act was barred by limitation, this Court is not dealing with the merits of the appea!. (12) tn view of the above the present appeal faite and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra t~ ^^ -^