AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Shinde, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Jayakwadi Project, Beed. It is the case of the applicants that, the land of the applicants was acquired by the respondents for construction of Ahmednagar-Parli (V) New Railway line at village Kolhyachiwadi. On 18th December, 2008 the respondent has issued notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "said Act") and notification u/s 6 of the said Act was issued on 21st January, 2010. On 5th August, 2011 the respondent initiated the proceedings under the said Act and the award was passed. It is the contention of the applicants that, they were called by the respondents and compensation is paid to them on 22nd May, 2012 and thereafter Reference u/s 18 of the said Act was filed on 28th May, 2012. The Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, they have not received notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act.
The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants invited my attention to pages 30 to 32 of the compilation of the application i.e. award statement-E and submits that, there was some correction in actual area of the land acquired and after that, the amount is paid on 22nd May, 2012. Therefore, it is submitted that, the applicants came to know about the contents of the award on 22nd May, 2012. The learned Counsel for the applicants pressed into service exposition of Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, and submits that, in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and in particular section 12(2) and 18(1) and the Supreme Court has taken a view that, limitation would start from the date of knowledge of the contents of the award. It is submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the applicants came to know about the contents of the award on 22nd May, 2012 and thereafter, immediately Reference is filed on 28th May, 2012, therefore, said Reference is well within period of limitation. The learned Counsel also pressed into service reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Supai Munda and Others, and submitted that, since the applicants did not receive notice u/s 12(2) issued by the Collector, therefore, limitation to file Reference in the facts of the present case will have to be reckoned from the date of disbursement of the amount to the applicants, when actually they came to know about the contents of the award. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat through Deputy Collector Modasa and Another, and submits that, in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that, application filed by the claimants within six months from the date of knowledge of declaration of award was well within period of limitation. Therefore, the Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, this Civil Revision Application may be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invited my attention to the provisions of section 12 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that, notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was served upon the applicants on 29th August, 2011, therefore, from the said date, the applicants should have filed Reference within six weeks. He further submits that, even from the date of passing of award, Reference is not filed within six weeks as per provisions of the Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, authority has rightly held that, Reference is time barred. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invited my attention to affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and submits that, notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was served upon the applicants, and therefore, it is not open for the applicants to contend that, no notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was served upon the applicants. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and in particular paragraph-12 thereof. It is submitted that, the limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice u/s 12(2) is received or as envisaged by Section 18(2). The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, and in particular paragraph-12 thereof. He submits that, even time required for obtaining certified copies cannot be excluded while computing limitation which starts running from issuance of notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade and Others Vs. The District Collector and Others, and in particular Head Note (B) thereof. He submits that, even if notice u/s 12(2) is taken as date on which such knowledge can be imputed, period of six weeks under Clause (b) of proviso of section 18 subsection (2) would begin to run with effect from date of service of that notice.
At the cost of repetition, the Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that, notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was served upon the applicants and to that effect, not only affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is filed but also by the respondent No. 3 and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that, there was service of notice issued u/s 12(2) of the said Act. Relying upon the affidavit in reply, annexures thereto, provisions of Land Acquisition Act and judgments cited supra, the Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that, Civil Revision Application may be rejected.
The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent No. 3 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and in particular paragraphs-4 and 5 thereof. He submits that, notice u/s 12(2) was issued on 26-08-2011. The said notice is served upon the applicants, therefore, Reference should have been submitted to the Collector by the applicants within 42 days on receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length, with their able assistance perused the averments in the application, annexures thereto, affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also by the respondent No. 3. It is the contention of the applicants that, notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was never served upon them alongwith copy of the Award, however, it is the contention of the respondents that, such notice was served upon the applicants. In order to find out whether Reference filed by the applicants was within limitation or not, it is necessary to mention date on which actual amount of compensation has been disbursed to the applicants. It is undisputed position that, amount is disbursed to the applicants on 22nd May, 2012. The Counsel for the applicants is right in contending that, there was some correction in the area which is acquired and necessary corrections have been made in the award and after such correction amount is paid to the applicants on 22nd May, 2012. It is specific contention of the applicants that, first time they got knowledge of contents of award only on 22nd May, 2012. Though sufficient time was granted by this Court to the respondent No. 3 to place on record whether notice issued u/s 12(2) of the said Act was accompanied with the copy of the award, no information in respect of same has been placed on record by the respondent No. 3. Only statement is made in the affidavit in reply that, notice u/s 12(2) of the said Act was issued to the applicants and they have received the said notice. Therefore, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu (supra), it will have to be held that, limitation to file Reference would start from the date of knowledge of the contents of the award to the applicants. In paragraph-13 of the judgment in the case of Premji Nathu (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier judgment of larger bench consisting of three Hon''ble Judges in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Another, . Paragraph-13 of the said judgment reads thus;
In State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Another, , the principle laid down in Harish Chandra''s case was reiterated and it was held:
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra case is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party u/s 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
(emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court in paragraph-14 of the judgment in the case of Premji Nathu (supra), has further made reference to its earlier judgment in the case of Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of UP and Others, in which Section 18 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads thus;
In Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of UP and Others, , 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.
The Court then held:
When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months'' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.
After adverting to the provisions of Section 12 and also section 18 of the said Act, the Supreme Court held that, limitation to file Reference will start from the knowledge of the award and knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. Therefore, since law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu (supra), is based upon earlier judgment of Supreme Court by larger Bench consisting three Hon''ble Judges, this Court is bound by the said authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, in the light of discussion herein above, the contention of the applicants deserves to be accepted that, they came to know about contents of the award on 22nd may, 2012 and Reference is filed on 28th May, 2012, therefore, Reference was within period of limitation. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that, nothing has been placed on record by the respondents so as to disbelieve the contention of the applicants that, no notice u/s 12(2) alongwith copy of the award has been received by them. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is quashed and set aside. The concerned Officer is directed to forward Reference of the applicants to the competent Court. Civil Revision Application is allowed to above extent, same stands disposed. Rule made absolute on above terms.