W.A.No.2228 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.08.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.A.No.2228 of 2021

and C.M.P.No.14081 of 2021

1.Union of India,

rep. by the Secretary to Government,

Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,

Government of Union Territory of Puducherry,

Puducherry.

2.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North

-cum-Land Acquisition Officer,

Puducherry

.. Appellants

Vs

A.Munisamy

.. Respondent

Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.6416 of 2015.

__________

Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2228 of 2021

For the Appellants

: Mr.S.Ravee Kumar

Govt. Pleader (Puducherry)

For the Respondent

: Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have heard Mr.S.Ravee Kumar, learned Government

Pleader (Puducherry) for the appellants and Mr.T.Sai Krishnan,

learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present respondent/original writ petitioner had filed a

writ petition seeking directions against the present appellants to

make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for brevity, “the Land Acquisition Act”) in respect of the

quantum of compensation payable to the respondent/original writ

petitioner for his land in Survey No.143/5 of Poornankuppam Village

acquired under the award dated 05.11.2010.

__________

Page 2 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2228 of 2021

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and

directed the second appellant to make a reference within four

weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

4. Learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for

the appellants strenuously contends that the learned Single Judge

was in error in directing reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act. The award has been passed on 05.11.2010. The

notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued on

28.01.2011 and served upon the respondent/original writ petitioner

on 02.02.2011. The respondent/original writ petitioner does not

dispute the receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act. A reference under Section 18 was sought to be

made on 16.09.2014 after nearly three years and nine months from

the date of award and after three years and seven months from the

date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition

Act.

5. According to learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), the

__________

Page 3 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2228 of 2021

pendency of the reference under Section 30 would not arrest the

running of the limitation. On 16.10.2015, a second application was

filed by the respondent/original writ petitioner for making a

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same is

also delayed by more than five weeks from the date of the order

under reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

According to learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), even under

the Right to Information Act, the copy of the award was received by

the respondent/original writ petitioner on 29.01.2015.

6. Learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) submits that

application for reference under Section 18 has to be made within the

period prescribed under the provision. Learned Government

Pleader (Puducherry) relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman

Sahkari Samiti Limited and another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 601

and in the case of Bhagwan Das and others v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 to submit that

the period prescribed under Section 18 is mandatory and

__________

Page 4 of 11

ht