AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.J. Desai, J
1 . Admit. Learned AGP waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the Defendants.
2 . With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
By way of present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 05.03.2019 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 103 of 2006 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, by which, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the reference case only on the ground of delay in filing the reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short).
The short facts arise from the records are as under:
4.1. That the land in dispute situated at village Dhundhiya Pipaliya, Taluka Vadiya, District Amreli came to be acquired for the purpose of Vadiya Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the respondent authority on 10.09.1998, which came to be published in Govt. Gazette on 06.05.1999. On 26.10.1999, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated (Jirayat nature) land and Rs. 6.50/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated (Bagayat nature) land under Section 11 of the Act.
4.2. The appellant file reference case before the concerned Reference Court for enhancement of the award granted by the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Reference Court by impugned judgment and award dismissed the reference case since the reference case has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation i.e. within a period of six months as per Section 18(2) of the Act.
4.3. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned Reference Court has committed grave error in interpreting the provisions of the Act whiling dealing with the factual aspects of the reference case. He would further submit that when the award was declared on 26.10.1999, neither the advocate nor his representative was present. No notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was ever served to the claimant. The claimant came to know about the award of compensation only when the amount of claim was paid to the claimant and thereafter, within a period of six months from the date of receiving the amount of compensation, the reference was made and therefore, the reference case has been filed within prescribed period of six months.
By taking me through the deposition of one Dipakkumar Natwarlal Sattani at Exh. 43, the witness examined by the State Authority, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that in his cross-examination, he has admitted that no notice has been served to the claimant. The claimant came to know about the award only on 29.03.2001 when the amount of compensation paid to him and therefore, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu V. State of Gujarat and Anr.. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250, the limitation would be of six months. He would submit that the claimant came to know about the award actually only on the 29.03.2001 when the amount of compensation paid to him and therefore, the learned Reference Court ought not to have dismissed the reference case. He would further submit that considering the above, the appeal be admitted and the matter be remanded to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration.
7 . On other hand, Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities, opposed this appeal.
8 . I have gone through the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment and award as well as record and proceedings of the case and also the deposition of Dipakkumar Natwarlal Sattani at Exh. 43.
It is an admitted fact that the award was declared on 26.10.1999. As admitted by the defendant witness Dipakkumar Natwarlal Sattani at Exh. 43, no notice ever served to the claimant. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has come to know about the award only on 29.03.2001 when the amount of compensation was paid to him and thereafter, the claimant immediately filed reference case on 01.05.2001.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the said provisions of Section-18 in the case of Premji Nathu (Supra) and had held in Para-18, which as under:
"18. In Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh,(2010) 3 SCC 545, this Court interpreted Section 18 and laid down the following propositions:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award."
Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the case would be cover under Clause-iii of Para-18 of the above-referred judgment. The claimant came to know about the award only on 29.03.2001 and has file reference case within a period of six months and therefore, the learned trial Court has committed error in rejecting the reference case filed by the original claimant. Hence, present appeal is allowed.
The judgment and award dated 05.03.2019 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 103 of 2006 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The learned Reference Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and to decide the reference case only on its own merit.
The Registry is hereby directed to send back the record and proceedings to the concerned Reference Court.