1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This writ petition assails the order dated 24 July, 2005 passed by respondent No.Z wherein he has dismissed, the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) filed by the present petitioners, considering the same to be time- barred.
2. The brief summary of the facts is as such as that, in the year 2002, the respondent acquired the land belonging to the petitioner for purposes to construct water tank, under greater water supply scheme. The petitioners being dissatisfied from the Award No.DK-16/GLT/312- 13/2003, filed objections under section 18 of the Act, before Collector Land Acquisition. The learned Collector after receiving the application dismissed the same as time barred, hence this writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the respondents.
4. The impugned order on the face of it seems to be sketchy, hasty and unheard, as such the learned Advocate-General without going into arguments in its defence, very frankly conceded the fact that the impugned order is unwarranted and can't be stood for.
5. This Court has noticed in some other cases too, that the Collectors under section 3 of the Act, while sitting to determine the rights of the public, forgetting, the fact that, they exercise their powers under the Act, as quasi Judicial Officers and as such they are bound under law to give reasons for their orders, This Court has also observed that, the Collectors while deciding the issues which are within their power under the Act again erred in law by passing the orders unheard and without assigning any reasons to it, for instance in the instant case, the learned Collector is well within power under the Act to decide the point of limitation for filing the objections under section 18 of the Act, but the impugned order which comprises only one and half line, as "your petition dated 12-7- 2004, under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being time-barred is hereby dismissed", is unwarranted and liable to be dismissed for the reasons that:-
(a) It has not been passed after hearing the parties, while it is incumbent upon the public functionaries to hear the parties when they sit to decide or determine the statutory rights of the public, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside under well settled principle of natural justice "Audi Alteram Partem" and also for not adopting the procedure provided under the Act.
(b) The impugned order is empty of reasons, while the Collectors under the Act are performing their powers as quasi-Judicial Officers, as such, they are bound to assign reasons to their orders, moreover, even administrative Officers/authorities are under obligation to exercise their powers entrusted to them under any enactment, fairly, justly and reasonably. Section 24-A of General Clauses Act is relevant to peruse.
(c) That section 18 of the Act provides three types of limitation periods, running from different dates for different reasons, but the impugned order being sketchy does not disclose that, the objections of the petitioners are suffering from what type of limitation provided in section 18 of the Act, hence the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the point of limitation is well within the power of the learned Collector, but the impugned order has been passed without meeting for the above three reasons, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Collector to adjudicate the issue, keeping in view the above three points. File.