Point of Law : Section 18 of said provides that any person who has not accepted award may, by a written application to Collector, require that matter be referred by Collector for determination of Court, whether his objection be to measurement of land, amount of compensation, persons to whom it is payable, or apportionment of compensation among persons interested.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Mr. Nikam, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks liberty to delete Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the cause title of the Petition. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment be carried out by 5.00 pm tomorrow. Re- verification is dispensed with.

2. Rule.

3. Learned A.G.P. waives service for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 15th July 2019 thereby rejecting the Reference No.360 of 2019 on the application preferred by the Petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further prays that the said application filed by the Petitioners be allowed.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 15th March 2002 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the said Act’). On 2nd August 2004, the Petitioners received a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act to receive compensation in respect of the said acquisition. It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioners received the said compensation without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

6. On 13th September 2004 the Petitioners preferred an application under Section 18 of the said Act, requesting to make reference before the Competent Court for the purposes of adjudication of the claim of the Petitioners.

7. It is the case of the Petitioners that, on 30th March 2019 the Petitioners received a communication from the Office of the Respondent No.2 informing that the papers and proceedings of the application dated 13th September 2004 filed under Section 18 of the said Act are not traceable in the Office of the Respondent No.2. The Petitioners accordingly re-constructed the papers and proceedings of the said application on the file of the Respondent No.2 on 17th June 2019.

8. On 15th July 2019 the Respondent No.2 however rejected the said application filed by the Petitioners on the ground that the said application was made after 15 years from the date of award. The Petitioners have thus filed this Petition.

9. Mr.Nikam, learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the application under Section 18 of the said Act for the reference of the claim to the Competent Court, annexed at Exh.A to the Petition and would submit that the said application was filed in the Office of the Deputy Collector on 13th September 2004. He submits that, the Deputy Collector himself was the Land Acquisition Officer No.6, Sangli.

10. It is submitted that, the Petitioners had made the said application under Section 18 of the said Act without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners after accepting the compensation paid by the Respondents.

11. It is made clear that, since the Petitioners received a notice from the Office of the Respondent No.2 that the papers and proceedings of the said application made by the Petitioners were not traceable on 30th March 2019, the Petitioners reconstructed the papers and proceedings of the said application dated 13th September 2004 by filing a new set of said application on 17th June 2019.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the averments made in paragraph No.4 of the Affidavit-in-Reply, affirmed on 17th March 2020, filed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.6, Sangli and would submit that it is admitted by the Respondents that the application was made by the Petitioners under Section 18 of the said Act in the year 2004. He submits that, merely because the said papers and proceedings in the said application filed by the Petitioners under Section 18 of the said Act were not traceable in the record of the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 cannot consider the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings on the request of the Respondent No.2 on 17th June 2019, as the date of filing of ap