Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court

The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't mean the application was filed later.

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed,

"In our view, the impugned Order is passed totally without application of mind…"

"… Merely because the record in the Office of the Respondent No.2(Deputy Collector) was not traceable and were allowed to be reconstructed…the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings on 17th June 2019 could not be considered as the date of filing such application under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act"

Facts of the Case

The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector) had acquired the petitioner's property and passed a compensation award on March 15, 2002. Aggrieved by the award, on September 13, 2004, the petitioner, as per procedure, approached the Deputy Collector to refer the acquisition to the competent court for reconsideration.

The Deputy Collector intimated the petitioner Madhav Ingle that the documents were not traceable on March 30, 2019 after which he submitted a fresh set of the appeal application in June, the same year. The Deputy Collector then rejected the plea the next month on the grounds that the application was barred by limitation.

Section 18(2)(a) mandates such an application must be filed within six weeks of the award and here 15 years had already lapsed.

Arguments

Advocate Kuldeep Nikam for the petitioner pointed out that the Deputy Collector had acknowledged receipt of the papers in 2004 itself, therefore the petitioner couldn't be faulted.

AGP opposed the petition and contended that the Deputy Collector had rightly rejected the application since the papers were not traceable on the record.

Observations

At the outset the court observed that the AGP did not deny that the petitioner approached them in 2004. Moreover, the initial application was filed within the limitation period.

"The application was already filed as far back as on 13th September 2004, which was within the time prescribed under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act and thus the Respondents ought to have considered the date of filing the said application as on 13th September 2004 and not the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings in the said application filed under Section 18 of the said Act."

The bench then restored the application with the Deputy Collector and directed him to decide it within 12 weeks.

Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31