Mahmoodunnisa Begum vs Govt. of Hyderabad

Qamar Hasan, J.—This is an appeal on behalf of the claimant under S. 43 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, and it is directed against the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, dated 21st April, 1953, refusing to entertain the reference under S. 14 of the aforementioned act, on the ground that the Collector had no jurisdiction to refer the award because the application under S. 14 was barred by limitation.

In order to appreciate the question involved in this appeal it may be stated at the on set that the Collector gave the award on 28th Isfander 1346 P. in the absence of the appellant and her advocate. The advocate for the appellant came to know of the delivery of the award on 10th Parwardi 1346 P. The appellant applied for a copy of the award on 10th Ardibehisht 1346f and obtained the same on 30th Ardioehisht 1346 F. The application under S. 14 of the said Act was made on 21st Khurdad 1346 F. where upon the Office of the Collector made a report to the effect that if the time spent in obtaining, the copy of the award were excluded, the application would be within time. The Collector on 12th Thir 1346 F. on this report ordered that if the application was within time the case be referred to the Court. While proceedings were being taken up by the Court, it was objected on behalf of the respondent that inasmuch as the application for reference to the court was beyond time, the Collector had no power to refer it to the Court, and for the matter of that, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The learned Judge of the Court below, relying on a number of authorities decided by Indian Courts, held that the application for reference being beyond time it should not be referred to the Court as was contended on behalf of the respondent, there Store he dismissed the reference.

The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that no question of limitation under S. 14 of the said Act arose in the present case inasmuch as the statutory notice under the provisions of S. 11 was not given to the appellant. We find force in this contention. Upon a perusal of the record it would appear that the inquiry ended on 7th Asur 1346 F. and the file was ordered to be posted on 14th Asur 1346 R. But it does not appear whether on the latter date he file was put up or any proceedings taken enough it is evident that on 28th Isfandar 1346 the award was given in the absence of the parties. Section 10 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred as the Act provides At the close of the inquiry the Taluqdar shall make an award under his hand, relating to the following matters and obtain thereon the acknowledgment signatures of the persons interested as are present in person or by representative Section 11 of the said Act provides: The award shall be in the Taluqdar''s Office and notice thereof shall be given to such of the persons interested whose acknowledgment signatures were not obtained at the time when the award was made and it shall be conclusive evidence of the particulars there in Section 14 of the Act provides "Every person interested, who is aggrieved by the Talukfiar''s award may, within two months from the date receiving notice of the award, apply to the Talukdar in writing to refer the case to the Court for determination; It would thus appear that when the Collector delivered his award neither the appellant nor his advocate was present; therefore, it was necessary for the Collector to issue the statutory notice under S. 11 of the Act. Since the requisite notice was not given to the appellant as has been admitted on Behalf of the respondent, we are of opinion that no question of limitation arose in this case. When a statute provides that limitation would commence on the happening if a certain contingency, limitation will not start unless that contingency happened, the authorities cited by the Court below in, support of its conclusion are distinguishable and are based on law which is quite different from Hyderabad law. Evidently before the lower Court the point of statutory notice under S. 11 was not urged

In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, and the case is remanded to the Court below for disposal on merits in accordance with law, the appellant will be entitled to get a certificate for the refund of the court-fee paid by him on the memorandum of appeal.