Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satya Devi vs State Of H.P. And Another on 19 March, 2020
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2504 of 2017
.
Judgment reserved on : 12.03.2020
Date of decision: 19th March, 2020
Satya Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another ...Respondents
__________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting1 : YES
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
with M/s J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma, Ritta
Goswami and Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocates General.
__________________________________________________
Jyotsna Rewal Dua,J. (Oral)
Land Acquisition Collector has refused to refer the reference petition, preferred by the petitioner, for adjudication to the learned District Judge, Shimla vide order dated 23.03.2017, holding it to be beyond limitation. Hence, instant writ petition has been filed.
1Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 22. The facts may be noted hereinafter:-
2(i) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition .
Act, 1894 was issued, inter alia, in respect of Khasra Nos. 954 and 955, situated in Revenue Village Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. for widening of Theog-Hatkoti road. These two khasra numbers were owned by the present petitioner. Eventually, only Khasra No. 954, measuring 0-05-56 hectares was acquired by the respondents. In this regard, a negotiated award, bearing No. 10/2009 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, HP PWD on 13.01.2009. It is not in dispute that due and admissible compensation under this negotiated award has been paid to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of Khasra No. 954.
2(ii) Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was again issued on 11.01.2012 in respect of certain khasra numbers, situated in Village Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., including Khasra No. 955, measuring 0-04-72 hectares and Khasra No. 961, measuring 0-08-34 hectares. Both these khasra numbers were owned by the petitioner. Name of the petitioner Satya Devi, daughter of Laiq Ram alongwith her signature is reflected below the endorsement on the Notification, dated 11.01.2012. The award bearing No. 11/2013 in respect of Khasra No. 955, measuring 0-04-72 hectares and Khasra ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 3 No. 961/1 measuring 0-02-74 hectares was passed on 27.06.2013 and was worded as 'negotiated supplementary award'.
.
2(iii) A Land Reference Petition was instituted by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla without clearly indicating details of the award impugned therein. Treating this Land Reference Petition to be against the award, dated 13.01.2009, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide order dated 23.03.2017 rejected it, holding it to be beyond the limitation. It is against this order that the instant writ petition has been preferred.
3. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State and have also gone through the appended record.
4. Contentions 4(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Reference Petition, filed by the petitioner, was against the award No. 11/2013, passed on 27.06.2013. Therefore, it was wrong on part of the Land Acquisition Collector to treat the Reference Petition as having been filed against the award, dated 13.01.2009. In the Land Reference preferred on 20.12.2013, there was a specific averment in para 21 that the award in question was announced recently, but without ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 4 considering the market value of land adjoining to the land of the petitioner. He, therefore, contended that the words 'recent award' could .
only relate to award No. 11/2013, passed on 27.06.2013. He further argued that though there is a mention of Khasra No. 954 alongwith Khasra No. 955 in the reference petition, however, this was a typographical error as in respect of Khasra No. 954, negotiated award had already been passed on 13.01.2009, which was accepted by the petitioner and thus had attained finality. The Reference Petition, therefore, has necessarily to be construed as having been filed regarding acquisition of Khasra Nos. 955 and 961/1, which were not part of the award, dated 13.01.2009 and were covered only under award, dated 27.06.2013.
4(ii) The learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the negotiated supplementary award No. 11/2013, dated 27.06.2013 was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner either before or after the pronouncement of the award. To substantiate his point, he has referred to internal page 2 of the award to show that the notice was given only to one Smt. Satya Devi, daughter of Shri Ram Dutt, whereas petitioner is Satya Devi, daughter of Shri Laiq Ram. On this basis, he contended that the limitation period of six months, as provided under ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 5 Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 will not come in her way in challenging the award dated 27.06.2013 as the award was not to .
the knowledge of the petitioner. Relying upon 2010(3) SCC 545 titled as Bhagwan Das and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, learned Senior Counsel submitted that award came to the knowledge of the petitioner through one Shri Hominder Singh, son of Shri Laiq Ram only in the second week of November, 2013 whereafter she received the compensation for her share on 14.11.2013 under protest, hence, from the date of knowledge of the award, dated 27.06.2013, challenge to the same was within the limitation period.
5(i) Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the Land Reference filed by the petitioner was titled as Land Reference No.______of 2011, referring therein only Khasra Nos. 954 and 955, without making any mention therein of the date or number of the award, therefore, it has necessarily to be construed as a challenge to the award, dated 13.01.2009, which was based upon negotiations accepted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of the negotiated award. The reference petition of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector being beyond limitation.
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 65(ii) Another contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General is that even if land reference petition is treated as having been .
filed against the award of 2013, then also, it was liable to be rejected since it was neither filed within 42 days of passing of the award nor within a period of six months provided under Section 18(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
6. From perusal of the record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, following points emerge:-
6(i) Award No. 10/2009 was passed on 13.01.2009. It was based on negotiations and inter alia, included within its ambit Khasra No. 954, measuring 0-05-56 hectares owned by the petitioner. Due and admissible compensation in lieu of acquisition of this khasra number has been paid to the petitioner. Admittedly, the award has attained finality.
6(ii) In respect of acquisition of Khasra Nos. 955 and 961, Notification under Section 4 was issued on 11.01.2012. A negotiated supplementary award No. 11 of 2013, in respect of these two khasra numbers, amongst others, was passed on 27.06.2013. However, no notice has been brought on record of the case to show that these negotiations were with notice to the petitioner. Name of the petitioner does not figure in the award, though the lands, admittedly owned by her, ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 7 comprised in Khasra Nos. 955 and 961/1 figure therein. Petitioner, definitely, had a right to put forth her objections to the acquisition of .
Khasra Nos. 955 & 961/1 owned by her. As per the averments made in the petition, no notice, either under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued to the petitioner before or after passing the award dated 27.06.2013. There is no denial to these factual submissions on part of the respondents.
6(iii) The Land Reference Petition filed by the petitioner though does not give any specific date or number of the award impugned therein, however, it was filed on 20.12.2013, not only under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but also under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Reference to 2013 Act has been repeatedly made in the petition. No doubt, Khasra No. 954 has been mentioned in the petition, which was acquired under award No. 10/2009, however, that fact by itself will not mean that challenge in the petition was to the award, dated 13.01.2009. Para 21 of the Land Reference Petition, being relevant in this regard, is extracted hereinafter:-
"21. That the respondents had announced the award recently without considering the market value near to the ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 8 petitioners land, hence feeling aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners prefer the present reference petition on the following amongst other grounds inter-alia:-.............."
.
The award passed in proximity to the filing of Reference Petition was award No. 11/2013 and not 10/2009, which had attained finality. Therefore, the assumption that the challenge in the Reference Petition was to the award, dated 13.01.2009 is mis-conceived.
6(iv) In respect of question of limitation, Hon'ble Apex Court in (2010) 3 SCC 545, titled as Bhagwan Das and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, had considered, inter alia, a question as to whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the award of the Collector or from the date of award itself. The question was answered in the following manner:-
"(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 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 9 which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under .
Section 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 under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award."
Applying the ratio of above law to the facts of instant case, it is relevant to notice that award No. 11/2013 was passed on 27.06.2013 without issuing notice to the petitioner. As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner became aware of the passing of award through one Shri Hominder Singh, son of Shri Laiq Ram only in the second week of November, 2013. The Reference Petition filed in December, 2013 was, therefore, within six months from the date of knowledge of passing of the award.
6(v) Right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. It is settled law that no one can be deprived of his property without following due process of law.
In light of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure P-3), refusing to refer the Land Reference Petition to the Court of learned District Judge is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 for deciding ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 10 the Land Reference Petition filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in light of observations made above.
.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( L. Narayana Swamy ),
Chief Justice
March 19th , 2020(K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP
11
.
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP