Collector Cannot Extend Limitation Period for Land Acquisition Act Applications

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, as the Collector does not function as a court. The Court emphasized that the Collector acts as a statutory authority, not a court, and cannot extend the limitation period for applications. Consequently, the applications for reference were deemed barred by limitation, and the Collector was held to lack the power to extend the time for filing such applications. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside, rejecting the applications under Section 18(1) without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Whether the Collector acts as a court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act
The respondents applied for a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after the prescribed period. The High Court of Gujarat held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the Collector, allowing for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act extends the prescribed period of limitation only when the LAO acts as a court. The Court concluded that the Collector is not a court for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and thus, the delay in filing the application for reference cannot be condoned.

Issue 2: Whether the Collector Acts as a Court
The Supreme Court examined whether the Collector acts as a court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court noted that the Act distinguishes between the Collector and the court. The Collector performs statutory functions, including making awards and referring applications to the court. The Court referred to various precedents, including Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra and State of Punjab & Anr. v. Satinder Bir Singh, to emphasize that the Collector acts as a statutory authority, not as a court. Consequently, the Collector does not have the power to extend the limitation period for applications u/s 18(1).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the applications for reference were barred by limitation and that the Collector has no power to extend the time for making an application u/s 18(1). The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court were set aside, rejecting the application u/s 18(1) without costs.

---