S. B. MAJMUDAR, S. L. TALATI, J.

( 1 ) MOHAN Vasta has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Rajkot dated 14-6-1977. The land of the petitioner bearing survey no. 63\2 was acquired by the respondent. The award was passed on 10 and the petitioner was paid the amount of Rs. 3302. 82 as compensation. That amount was accepted under protest. He thereafter presented an application to the Collection for reference under sec. 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. As this petition was not submitted within a period of 45 days as provided by sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act he submitted an application to condone the delay. The ground stated was that his wife was sick and was suffering from T. B. and there severe heavy rains. He produced the medical certificate and also an affidavit of a respectable person from the village. The Collector after considering the matter came to the conclusion that though the wife of the petitioner was suffering from T. B. . the petitioner was not suffering and the distance from village Kothariya to Rajkot was 8 to 10 Kms. and after September there serve no rains. Giving these reasons he came to the conclusion that there was no reason to condone the delay and the application case to he dismissed. That order is now being challenged by filing this petition.

( 2 ) BEFORE we say anything in regard to the order by referring to the authorities we have to dispose of preliminary objections raised by the Assistant Government Pleader. Shri G. D. Bhatt. It was submitted that there was no power to condone the delay and reliance was placed on the case of Prabhakar Vasudev Gadgil and Others etc. v. P. Y. Deshpande Special Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in A. I. R. 1983 Bombay at page 342. The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the Collector acting under sec. 18 of then Land Acquisition Act was not a Court and the provisions of the Limitation Act would not be attracted. The Bombay High Court came to this conclusion mainly considering the case of The Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum v. T. P. Kuntaliumma reported in A. I. R. 1977 Supreme Court at page 1282. The Bombay High Court on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mahijibhai Jivanbhai Vaghri v. M. C. Shah Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Nadiad reported in I. L. R. 1968 Gujarat at page 348 was not a good law. Now it is required to he stated that the Supreme Court was ceased of the matter and the matter vas arising out of an application which was submitted to the District Court under sec. 16 (3) the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 claiming an enhanced compensation. The District Judge held that the application was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 and therefore the petition was filed beyond three years and was barred by time. The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge and remitted the matter back to the Court for disposal in accordance with law. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment came to the following conclusion:-"22 The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two Judge Bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case (AIR 1969 SC 1335) (supra) and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by of under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition in the present ease was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one contemplated by the Telegraph Act for judicial decision. The petition is an application falling within the scope of Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act". Now therefore the Supreme Court only considered the question as to whethe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document