Madan Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - the petitioner being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, moved an application under section 18 of the act requiring the collector to refer the matter to learned district judge for determination of market value of the acquired land.g.c. garg, j. 1. delay in filing the revision petition is sought to be condoned on the ground that no notice of hearing of the application under section 18 of the land acquisition act was ever issued to the petitioner nor the decision thereon was ever conveyed and that the petitioners immediately on coming to know of the order declining the reference, filed this revision after obtaining certified copy of the order. reply to the application seeking condonation of delay was filed. it is not disputed that no notice of hearing of the application under section 18 of the act was issued to the petitioners and that the same was declined being barred by time. it also could not be disputed that no intimation in respect of order rejecting the application was conveyed to the petitioners. in the circumstances and having regard to the above factual position, it is a fit case where delay in filing the revision petition deserves to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned.2. learned counsel for the parties have also been heard on the merits of the revision. some land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents for the benefit of the market committee, karnal. the petitioner being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, moved an application under section 18 of the act requiring the collector to refer the matter to learned district judge for determination of market value of the acquired land. this application was dismissed by the learned collector in the absence of notice to the petitioners. order rejecting the application was also not communicated to the petitioner.3. learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the absence of notice, the collector could not decide the application. even if the application was barred by time, he should have referred the matter to learned district judge and the question of limitation should have been left open to be decided in the reference. i find merit in the contention of the learned counsel. the application moved by the petitioners seeking reference was dismissed by the learned collector as barred by time without assigning any reason. no notice of the date of hearing of the said application was even issued to the petitioners. the order passed on the application was not even conveyed to the petitioners. in my view it was incumbent on the collector at least to give notice to the petitioners before rejecting the application seeking reference regarding determination of market value of the land and in case the collector was of the view that no notice was necessary, he ought to have referred the matter to the learned district judge for adjudication leaving it open to him to decide the question of limitation. he himself could not in the absence of notice come to the conclusion that the application was barred by time and consequently file the same. the court in smt. devinder kaur v. state of punjab,1 1988 p.l.j. 324 and jit singh v. land acquisition collector,2 (1991-1) 99 p.l.r. 519 took the same view and directed the learned collector to make reference under section 18 of the act to the learned district judge. above being the situation, this revision succeeds. order of the collector rejecting the application as bared by time is set aside and a direction is issued to the learned collector to refer the application moved by the petitioners to learned district judge for adjudication leaving the question of limitation open.the revision stands allowed accordingly.