Karnataka High Court
K. Lakshminarayana Sastry vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 14 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995KANT217, ILR1994KAR2119, 1994(3)KARLJ70, AIR 1995 KARNATAKA 217, (1994) 2 RENTLR 594 (1994) 3 KANT LJ 70, (1994) 3 KANT LJ 70
ORDER
1. This Revision arises out of an order of the learned Civil Judge at Chinta-mani, rejecting a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acqusition Act by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballpur Sub-Division, on the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acqusition Act. The reference relates to the acquisition of an extent of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 3 of Vaizakur Village of Chintamani Taluk. Possession of the land was taken on 21-9-1976 and an Award was passed on 4-7-1977, by which, the land value was fixed at Rs. 1,000/-per acre. The petitioner who is the legal representative of the original claimant, received the compensation under protest on 27-10-1989. He filed an application for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18-1-1990 before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matier relating to the valuation of the land to the Civil Judge, Chintamani. The case was referred to the Court on 28-5- 1990. Though the Land Acquisition Court found that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of the land value, rejected the reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The learned Judge has given two reasons for rejecting the application, viz., (i) that the reference was made by the Land Acqusition Officer 90 days after the date of the application for reference and (ii) that the application before the Land Acquisition Officer is itself barred by limitation as it was not filed within 90 days from the dale of the knowledge of the award. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Court rejected the reference. It is this order that is challenged in this Revision Petition.
2. As stated earlier, the learned Civil Judge rejected the reference on two grounds -- (i) that the reference was made by the Land Acqusition Officer after 90 days from the date of the application. The application was filed on 18-1-1990 and the reference was made only on 28-5-1990 beyond 90 days from the date of the application and accordingly, it is barred by limitation and (ii) that the petitioner had the knwoledge of the Award atleast from 16- 8-1986 or from 24-10-1989 on which dates, the claimant filed application before the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation to him. It is the correctness of the above order that is to be considered in this Revision Petition. On the first ground, though a learned single Judge of this Court in Uppara Basappa v. The Special Land Acqusition' Officer, Bellary (1987) 1 Kant LJ 215 held that any reference made beyond 90 days from the date of the application is barred by limitation, that decision is no longer good law in the light of the later Division Bench dccisionof this Court reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Gurapa Channa Basappa Paramaj ILR 1991 Kant 1109. In this Division Bench decision, it is held that, any reference made within 3 years 90 days from the date of application is within time and that such a reference cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Though 1 have a doubt about the correctness of the dictum that a reference has to be made within 3 years and 90 days and referreds another case to Division Bench, in this particular case it is not necessary to resolve that controversy, for, admittedly the reference is within that period. Accordingly, the first ground given by the learned Civil Judge is erroneous and 1 hold that the reference is within time.
3. The second ground on which reference was rejected is that the claimant had knowledge of the Award even before 90 days of the application of the reference dated 18-1-1990. That question will depend upon the interpretation of Section 18 of the Lahd Acquisition Act as amended by the Karnataka Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 1761). Under the Central Act, the proviso to Section 18(2) provides the period of limitation for making an application for reference to the Court before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Central Act provides for the periods of limitation, viz., if the person making the application for reference was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award and 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 for the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. But this proviso is not in force in the Karnataka State as the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Central Act was substituted by another proviso which reads as follows:
"Provided that every such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of service of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner, under sub-section (2) of Section 12."
From the aforesaid proviso, as introduced in the Karnataka State, it is absolutely clear that there is only one period of limitation for making application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, viz., within 90 days from the date of service of notice from the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 12.
In other words, the period of limitation w ill begin to run only from the date of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 and the question of knowledge of the award is immaterial in calculating the period of limitation for making an application for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The proviso as introduced by the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act is absolutely clear that the starting point of the period of limit at ion is the date of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 only and not any other date. When the Land Acquisition Act as amended in the Karnataka State provides only for one period of limitation, any application filed within that time shall be deemed to be within time and the reference cannot be rejected on the ground that the applicant had knowledge of the Award before that date.
4. In this case, it is clearly found by the learned Civil Judge in more than one place in his Judgment that the claimant never received notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act regarding passing of the Award. If no notice has been served on the applicant under Section 12(2) of the Act, the period of limitation has not begun to run at all as against the revision petitioner and any application filed by the claimant on coming to know of the award is within time. The knowledge of the award by the claimant either actually or constuctively is immaterial in the light of the proviso to .Section 18(2) of the Land Acqusition Act is amended by the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1961. In this case, no notice was served on the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act and the application filed by him on 18-1-1990 on his own volition, on coming to know of the Award is within time and the learned Civil Judge erred in holding that the application before the Deputy Commissioner is barred by limitation.
5. On going through the materials available in the case, I do not agree with the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the claimant had knowledge of the award, even assuming that it is material, though I have held that it is not material. The learned Judge has relied on two applications dated 16-8-1986 and 24-10-1989 filed by the petitioner requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to pay him the compensation amount; from these two petitions, the Court has assumed that the claimant would have knowledge of the award atleast from 16-8-1986 or at any rate from ' 24-10-1989 and consequently, the application filed on 18-1-1990 for reference is barred by limitation. Though the petitions are in Kannada, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader placed before me the true translation of the same, from which, it is not possible to infer that the claimant had any knowledge of any award having been passed in the case, There is no reference of passing any award in those two petit ions. The petitioner only states that 2 acres and 20 guntas of land were acquired in 1976 and that he was not paid the compensation in respect of the same which he is entitled to receive. He only approached the Land Acquisition Officer to pay him the compensation due to him under the Land Acquisition and from the averment in these two petitions, it is no! possible 10 hold that the petitioner had any knowledge regarding the passing of the Award much less the contents of the same. No doubt, he received the compensation amount on 27-10-1989 from which date, at best, it could be inferred that he had the knowledge of the award, but, the reference application was filed on 18-1-1990 within 90 days from the date of receipt of compensation amount and accordingly, the application for reference is within time. The rejection of the reference on that ground is also erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, I set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-12-1992 passed in L.A.C. No. 1/90 and hold that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28-5-1990 is within time and remand the case No. L.A.C. No. 1/90 to the file of the learned Civil Judge, Chintamani, for adjudicating the case on merits.
The parties shall appear before the lower Court on 8-8-1994. Send back the records forthwith.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
6. Order accordingly.