Tripura High Court
Sri Bijoy Laskar vs The State Of Tripura on 18 April, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)1371 of 2016
Sri Bijoy Laskar,
son of late Charu Chandra Laskar @
Charu Laskar, resident of Village-South Chandrapur,
Udaipur, P.O. Chandrapur,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Sub-Division - Udaipur,
District : Gomati, Tripura
............Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Department of
Revenue, Government of Tripura, having its office at Capital
Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
Sub-Division - Agartala, District : West Tripura
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati, Tripura,
having his office at Udaipur, P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur,
Sub-Division- Udaipur, District : Gomati, Tripura
............ Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioner : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D.C. Nath, Advocate Date of delivery of : 18.04.2017 Judgment and order Whether fit for reporting : YES Judgment and Order (Oral) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who as the legal heir of Charu Chandra Laskar @ Charu Laskar has Page 1 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016 become entitled to receive a share of the award dated 12.05.2011 which has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur.
3. There is no dispute in respect of the legal heirs of Charu Chandra Laskar @ Charu Laskar who died on 27.04.2011. The petitioner has produced the survival certificate dated 26.06.2011 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] wherefrom it surfaces that Charu Chandra Laskar @ Charu Laskar is survived by as many as eight legal heirs who have every right to succeed over his property including the value of the landed property which has been acquired by the respondents for construction of railway line from Agartala to Sabroom under South Tripura District.
4. Having received the notice dated 11.04.2011, according to the respondents, the petitioner did not take any steps for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application for that purpose, however, was filed on 18.08.2011. By the notice dated 11.04.2011, the original land loser was directed to receive the awarded sum by 12.05.2011.
5. There is no dispute that the original land loser died on 27.04.2011. Therefore, the petitioner had right including to ask for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on and from 27.04.2011 as the original land loser died without accepting any part of the award or without applying for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has set up an argument by interpreting Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under : Page 2 of 7
WP(C)1371 of 2016 "(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made ;--
(a) if the person making it 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;
(b) 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 from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."
7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that having the notice of the award and having a mere notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be the same. Unless, the constructive knowledge of the award is known to the land losers, it cannot be expected that he would raise the grounds for making reference under Section 18(2) of the said Act.
8. In support of his contention, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the apex court in Premji Nathu versus State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250. The apex court in Premji Nathu (supra) has interpreted the provisions of Section 12(2) of the said Act in the broader perspective. For purpose of reference, the following passages is reproduced hereunder :
"13. Section 18(1) provides for making of reference by the Collector to the Court for the determination of the amount of compensation etc. Section 18(2) lays down that an application for reference shall be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, if at the time of making of award the person seeking reference was present or was represented before the Collector. If the person is not present or is not represented before the Collector, then the application for reference has to be made within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
14. The reason for providing six months from the date of the award for making an application seeking reference, where the applicant did not receive a notice Page 3 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016 under Section 12(2) of the Act, while providing only six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act for making an application for reference where the applicant has received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is obvious. When a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is received, the landowner or person interested is made aware of all relevant particulars of the award which enables him to decide whether he should seek reference or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know that an award has been made, he would require further time to make enquiries or secure copies so that he can ascertain the relevant particulars of the award.
15. What needs to be emphasised is that along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, the land owner who is not present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he may effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek reference to the Court."
9. The apex court in Premji Nathu (supra) has approvingly quoted the State of Punjab versus Qaisar Jehan Begum reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604 where it has been laid down that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra Raj Singh versus Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 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. 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 under Section 12(2) of the Act with a copy of the award, then it can be held that the concerned interest party was with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly, when and interested party is present in the 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 Page 4 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016 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.
10. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of that ratio as espoused by the apex court in Prem Nathu (supra) has contended that the respondents cannot controvert that neither the petitioner or his deceased father was present when the award was passed and neither his deceased father nor he was communicated with the contents of the award to gather constructive knowledge as indicated in Qaisar Jehan Begum (supra) by the apex court.
11. It is an admitted fact that before expiry of the period of limitation, the father of the petitioner died. Therefore, the knowledge has to be devolved to the petitioner. This cannot be denied by the respondents that the content of the award was not communicated by the notice dated 11.04.2011. The said communication was restricted to the fact that award has been passed to the extent of Rs.3,44,250/-. There was no other materials constituting the award or were made known to the petitioner. Thus, when the petitioner filed the application noting dissatisfaction about the award that should have been treated within time.
12. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously argued that in view of the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the prayer for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is pressed Page 5 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016 by the petitioner cannot be maintained as it is time barred. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has categorically stated that "the entitlement of awarded compensation" was communicated to the petitioner on 11.04.2011. This is however very difficult to accept inasmuch as on 11.04.2011, the original land loser was very much alive. There was no question of giving the notice to the petitioner though it has been claimed by their communication dated 01.10.2016.
13. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that on 18.08.2011 the application for the reference was made. According to this court, it is a case where the respondents have totally failed to show that the contents of the award particularly the basic components of the award was communicated to the petitioner. To that extent, this court is in agreement with Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Taking the event like death of the father of the petitioner into consideration this court is of the view that this is a case where Section 18(2)(b) shall apply. As such the respondents, particularly the Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur, is directed to refer the case of the petitioner being Case No. 20/U/2010 to the Land Acquisition Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of 1(one) month when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur.
Having observed thus, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Page 6 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016 There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents for doing the needful.
JUDGE Sabyasachi.B Page 7 of 7 WP(C)1371 of 2016