The mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 18 of Act, 1894, and the requirement for the application to be made within the prescribed time limit.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This writ petition is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the Lokayukta in Complaint No. 599 of 2008. The subject issue raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition before the Lokayukta was that the property having an extent of 7.5 cents belonging to the respondents was acquired by the writ petitioner as per proceedings bearing LAC No. 114/99 on the files of the petitioner-Tahasildar.

2. The case projected by the respondents was that award notice was served on them on 23.06.2003 and they have filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act, 1894' for short) on 17.07.2003 before the writ petitioner. However, in spite of that, no steps were taken to refer the matter to the Reference Court in terms of the provisions of Act, 1894 and thus, sought appropriate orders. The writ petitioner objected to the relief sought for by the respondents contending that though a reference application was filed under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the same was not in time prescribed under law and hence, the reference was not made to the competent court.

3. Therefore, the question that arose for consideration before the Lokayukta was whether the reference application given by the respondents was in time as is provided under Section 18 of Act, 1894. Along with the complaint, respondents have filed Ext. P2 dated 17-07-2003, which is alleged to be the objection filed by them on receiving notice under Section 12(2) of the Act 1894 stating that the award amount was received under protest and that the respondents are entitled to get the land value at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/-per cent and accordingly, requested that reference may be made to the Sub Court for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894.

4. The Lokayukta apparently has also gone through the files pertaining to the acquisition in question and found at page 39 of the files, the objection given by the respondents to the notice under Section 12(2), but it did not contain the signatures of the respondents, however it bears the date 24.06.2004. Therefore, the Lokayukta, arrived at the finding that on the basis of the data available in the objection dated 24.06.2004, the application for reference can only be said to be beyond time and it was also seen that the application for reference given by the complainants in form No. 22A bears signature of the complainants, but there is no date in that application for reference. Therefore, it also arrived at the conclusion that there is no possibility to see from the application for reference given under form No.22A of Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990, the date on which that application was given.

5. However, bearing in mind those facts, the Lokayukta entered a finding that since the applications available in the file produced by the Government are not in terms of law, the only course open to it is to accept the date given in Ext. P2 objection dated 17.07.2003 filed by the respondents along with the complaint as the date on which the objection to Section 12(2) notice requesting to refer the matter to the Sub Court was given and accordingly, held that the said reference application can be said to be within the time and thereupon, the writ petitioner-Tahsildar was directed to make a reference to court under Section 18 of Act, 1894. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Lokayukta, the writ petition is filed raising the contentions as hereunder.

6. That the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; that in a number of judgments, it was held by this Court that the Lokayukta has no power to adjudicate the matters involving factual issues and pass unreasonable orders; that the Lokayukta has no power to pass executable orders; but rather it has only power to direct the Government to redress the grievance of an ag