Judgment:
Markandey Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 13.08.2003 passed in Writ Miscellaneous Petition No.19375 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.15436 of 2003. By that interim order, the injunction application in the writ petition has been rejected.
2. While hearing the writ appeal we also decided to hear the writ petition itself because we were of the view that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award dated 16.09.2002 has Awarded interest for more than 17 years with effect from 01.07.1985, and it is against this direction that the writ petitioner is aggrieved.
3. In our opinion, the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act because the direction against which the writ petitioner is aggrieved is contained in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act states:-
'Sec-18: Reference to Court - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the Award may, be written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested'.
5. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act shows that any person interested who has not accepted the Award may file a reference application under Section 18(1) of the Act. The words 'any person interested who has not accepted the Award', in our opinion, are very widely framed. The writ petitioner is certainly a person interested who has not accepted the Award. Hence, the writ petitioner could have filed a reference application under Section 18(1) of the Act, but instead he directly filed this writ petition against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In our opinion, this writ petition should not have been entertained at all because the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under Section - 18 of the Act to file a reference application.
6. In the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act. However, in view of Sections 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, and also because the writ petition had in fact been entertained and it is a well settled principle that no one should suffer for the fault of the Court (Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit), we are of the opinion that the petitioner should not be made to suffer on this count.
7. In Rodger v. Comptoir d' Escompte de Paris, (1871) 3 PC 465 (at p.475) Cairns, L.C. observed:-
'One of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any one of the suitors'.
8. The above observation was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, .
9. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors., the Supreme Court observed:-
'That no one shall suffer by an act of the Court is not a rule confined to an erroneous act of the Court; the 'act of the Court' embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the court may form an opinion in any legal proceedings that the Court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law'.
10. The above decision of the Supreme Court was followed in Karnataka Rare Earth and Anr. v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology and Anr., and HUDA v. Babeswar Kanhar, 2005 2 L.W.122.
11. Hence, we hold that if the writ petitioner files a reference application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector within six weeks from today, the same will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously thereafter. The writ appeal is also dismissed. No costs. W.A.M.P.No.1277 of 2005 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.19375 of 2003 in W.P.No.15436 of 2003 is also dismissed.