AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Shakil Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. H. D. Futane, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
By way of this appeal challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02.12.2004 passed by the District Court, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 78/1991. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned Reference Court dismissed the reference mainly on the ground that same was barred by limitation. However, while rejecting the reference on the ground of limitation also touched to the merits of the matter and held that appellant is entitled for the enhanced compensation. In view of this, the appellant prayed in the present appeal that by setting aside the order of Reference Court same be remanded back to the Court for fresh disposal on its own merit.
According to me, when the Reference Court reached to the conclusion that reference was not filed within a time limit as provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there was no need for the Reference Court to touch the merits of the matter. In this regard, the legal position is well settled that once the Court has reached the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by the limitation then merits of the matter should not be touched.
In view of this, I am of the opinion that only the issue of limitation is required to be considered in the matter. It will be apropos to refer Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is reproduced as under:-
“(1)Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be re-ferred 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 apportion-ment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2)The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:Provided that every such application shall be made,
(a)if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award;
(b)in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.”
Bare perusal of 2 (b) of this provision states that the application for en-hancement can be filed either within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 or within a six months from the date of Collec-tor award which ever period shall first expired.
In the present case, perusal of the record shows that the Land Acquisi-tion Officer has issued the notice under Section 12 (2) to the appellant on 13.04.1985, thereby directing appellant to remain present before him on 07.05.1985 (Exhibit 62). The said notice nowhere states that the copy of award is accompanied with the same. Exhibit 78 shows that the amount of compensation was disbursed to the appellant and Exhibit 79 is the possession receipt with the signature of the appellant showing the date 07.05.1985.
I have perused the entire record but I could not find out that the appel-lant was served with the copy of award, which is the mandate of the law and therefore, according to me, the appellant is correct to state that the notice un-der Section 12 (2) was not properly served on him.
The appellant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of In-dia in the case of Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade Vs. State of Maharashtra Through The Collector reported in (2018) 8 SCC 266 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 9 and 10 as under.
“9.The main contention canvassed by the Appellants, in these Civil Appeals, is whether an effective notice of the award was provided to the Appellant herein, as per the mandate of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
10.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, relies on the judgment of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 250 wherein this Court has observed as under-
20.In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the conclusion recorded by the Reference Court, which has been approved by the High Court that the application filed by the Appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable.
21.A careful reading of the averments contained in Para 2 of the application filed by the Appellant Under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the Collector Under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22-2-1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8-4-1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of the award had not been sent to the Appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference.
22.On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award was sent to the Appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious error by approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice issued by the Collector Under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise of right vested in the Appellant to seek reference Under Section 18(1).”
Perusal of the above said provision of Land Acquisition Act and judg-ment clarify the fact that unless the State Government prove that notice was served along with copy of award, the mandate of Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not complied with and thereby they can’t took a stand that Reference was not filed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of notice only. Hence, prima facie finding recorded by Reference Court founds to be illegal.
Moreover, Section 18 (2) (b) made it clear that in case the notice under Section 12 (2) is not received, there is a limitation of six months from the date of Collector’s award. In the present case, admittedly, the award passed by the learned Collector on 30.04.1985 and the reference was filed on 16.10.1985. Therefore, in any case, the reference was filed within a limitation of six months.
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court that reference was not filed within a limitation are the perverse finding and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
The judgment and order dated 02.12.2004 in L.A.C. No. 78/1991 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The L.A.C. No. 78/1991 is remitted back to the Reference Court to decide afresh on its own merits.
The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 9.12.2025 and cooperate to decide the Reference proceeding without ob-taining unnecessary adjournment
The office is directed to sent back all the case papers.
Learned Reference Court should take endeavor to decide the refer-ence proceeding at an earliest by considering the old age of the claimants.
No order as to costs.