Pali Ram and ors. Vs. State of Haryana Through Land Acquisition Collector Urban Estate

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of..........revision.2. award was given by the collector on september 23, 1986. the petitioners who are claimants moved an application dated september 8,1989 received in the office of the land acquisition collector on september 14, 1988 seeking reference under section 18 of the act. the land acquisition collector by the impugned order declined to refer the reference by observing that the application was barred by time by one year and 357 days. it is how the present revision came to be filed.3. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land acquisition collector passed the impugned order in the absence of any notice to the petitioners and even otherwise, the collector could not enter into the merits of the application including limitation and he was duly bound to refer the application of the petitioners to the district judge leaving it open to the respondent-state of haryana, to raise the question of limitation before the district judge.4. learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length.5. it could not be disputed that it was not for the collector to decide, whether the application for reference was within limitation or was barred by time. it was a matter to be raised by the aggrieved party before the reference court who would have answered the same according to law. the collector in the circumstance should have referred the matter to the district judge leaving the question of limitation open so that the parties could lead evidence on this point before the question could be decided. for the aforesaid view i am supported by the decision of this court in dharam pal v. the collector land acquisition urban development, punjab s.a.s. nagar (mohali) , 1987 plj 263.6. in the situation aforesaid, the revision succeeds and is allowed and the impugnedorder is set aside. the land acquisition collector, panchkula is directed to refer the application under section 18 of the act moved by the petitioners and received in his office on september 14, 1988, to the.....