ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Collector, Raigarh (C.G) whereby, the application preferred by the applicant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short ‘‘the Act, 1894’’) for making a reference in respect of enhancement of the award of compensation passed in the Land Acquisition Case No.19/v- 82/2009-10 Village Khairpur, has been rejected on the ground that the said application has been moved after 6 months from the date of passing of the award and the applicant has also not mentioned any reason for delay in filing the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s land bearing Khasra No.519/1 ad-measuring 0.049 Hectare situated at Village Khairpur, Tehsil and District Raigarh was acquired for construction of road and an award was passed on 22.03.2012 by the Land Acquisition Officer (Annexure P/2). On 14.05.2012 immediately after passing of the award, the applicant moved an application (Annexure P/3) for determination of the compensation @ 3,600/- as per the guideline. In this petition, it has been stated that on such date the applicant had prayed to refer the matter to the competent Court for determination of proper compensation. On 05.11.2014, 02.01.2015 and 17.05.2023 the applicant has filed application for sending the reference. Thereafter, the applicant has moved a Writ Petition before this Court bearing WPC No.3427/2023, wherein, the applicant made a limited prayer to decide the application preferred by him on 02.01.2015 by the concerned authority within stipulated time, which was not opposed by the State counsel.

3. Thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was passed by the Collector holding that the reference application was not filed within limitation and dismissed the prayer for making reference. Hence, this Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order is bad in law, as under the Act, 1894, the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer is duty bound to send the reference to the competent Court. He would further submit that the applicant is an old person aged about 89 years and infirm. Due to the arbitrary action of the State authorities thereby, depriving him to get proper compensation. Though, the applicant has firstly approached on 14.05.2012 which was well within the limitation period and while passing the order, learned Collector has failed to appreciate this aspect. Learned counsel prays to allow the Revision and set aside the impugned order. He would place reliance on the judgments in the matters of Pannalal Mourya Vs. State of C.G (order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Civil Revision No.142/2012); and Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By L.Rs. & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra, [2011 AIR SCW 5749 (at para 12)] to submit that the Land Acquisition Officer is not a Court and he could not determine the question of the limitation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order, which is well merited. He submits that the application has not been preferred within limitation as prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894 and the said limitation is prescribed in the special law. Hence, the provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not apply. He would further submit that the applicant has wrongly stated the facts in the Revision that on 14.05.2012 he has filed a reference application vide (Annexure P/3), though in the said application, there is no such prayer and the only prayer was made to determine the compensation in accordance with the guideline @ 3,600/-. As the applicant was well aware of the award on such date and thereafter, he has not moved proper application for making reference, even he has accepted the award and did not fulfill the prerequisites required under Section 18 of the Act, so no interference is warranted invoking the revisional jurisdiction.

6. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmos