The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act starts from the date of knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and the award. Failure to move the application within the prescribed time limit bars the claim for enhancement of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24314 of 2017.)

1. The learned Single Judge, on 13.12.2019, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant where he had prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.1.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) (North) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Puducherry whereunder, the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) moved by the appellant was rejected.

2. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant had filed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act beyond the period of six months, and he being not a purchaser from the original landowner and who had not made any attempt to get his name mutated in the Land Revenue Records, was not entitled to for a mandamus contrary to the statute. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the allegation of failure to serve notice on the appellant in the land acquisition proceedings did not invalidate the acquisition or otherwise create any further right in favour of the appellant, that stood foreclosed for the purposes of Section 18 of the 1894 Act on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein.

3. The Court has further found that the reliance placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2018 in W.P.No.6416 of 2015 (A. Munisamy v. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Govt. of U.T. of Puducherry) was not attracted on the facts of the present case and hence, this appeal by the appellant questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2019.

4. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and we had posed certain questions calling upon the respondent Puducherry Government to answer the same vide order dated 3.6.2020, which is extracted herein under:

“Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan & Another vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 846, has urged that after the order was passed under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the appellant was found entitled to the compensation, he was well within his right to move an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of the compensation but the same has been erroneously rejected by the learned Single Judge.

2. The question of date of knowledge, accrual thereof or even constructive knowledge have been dealt with by the Apex Court in several decisions and it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents that the appellant in respect of another acquisition, where again his name was not appearing in papers, has filed a Writ Petition that was dismissed, was well aware of the process of law and he cannot be given the benefit of an illiterate farmer who did not know about the process of moving an application.

3. The fact of the matter is that the acquisition and the award concluded against the vendor of the petitioner who, it is stated, had died and the award was made final. The appellant did not choose to question the award, but only after the apportionment case as mentioned above was finalised that he did move the application under Section 18 of the Act contending that his knowledge being subsequent and his accrual of rights having been declared in the said proceedings, the presumption in law would be as held in the case of Madan & Another vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) that the appellant has right now to move an application under Section 18 of the Act.

4. The said controversy has been dealt with in several decisions of the Apex Court apart from the case of Madan (Supra) and therefore, learned counsel may assist the Court appropriately with regard to the decisions thereon.

5. Learned Additional Gov