Gujarat High Court
Shantilal Ambalal vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 June, 2018
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/FA/2084/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2084 of 2018
==========================================================
SHANTILAL AMBALAL
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR. RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 20/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. The delay of 56 days in filing this First Appeal has been condoned today.
2. Since the delay has been condoned today only, the registry shall give a regular number to the First Appeal as the First Appeal, as on date, is with a stamp number.
3. Since the issue raised in this First Appeal is very limited, I have thought fit to take up the First Appeal for final hearing today itself.
4. This Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is at the instance of the original claimant questioning the legality and validity of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Page 1 of 5 C/FA/2084/2018 ORDER Judge, Bharuch, in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 247 of 1996.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the Land Reference Case before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, arose from an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project, Bharuch, in the Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 1984. An amount to the tune of Rs. 120 per Are came to be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by way of compensation for acquisition of non-irrigated land.
6. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation.
The reference came to be filed on 06.09.1993 against the award dated 29.04.1986. In such circumstances, the Court below thought fit to address itself on the issue of limitation. The reference was ordered to be dismissed on the ground that the same was time barred.
7. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, answered the issue of limitation as under:-
"Issue No. 3:-
The opponents have raised objection relating to limitation. It is the case of opponents that award was passed on dated 29.04.1986 and present reference is filed on 06.09.1993 hence, it is beyond Page 2 of 5 C/FA/2084/2018 ORDER limitation.
Let us first of all examine the legal position U/sec 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the sake of convenience I reproduce it:-
Sec. 18 (1):- "Any person interested, who has not accepted the award may be written application to the collector, required that the matter be referred by the collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the person intended."
Sec. 18(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 6 weeks from the date of collector's award.
(b) In other cases, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the collector, U/sec (2), or within 6 months from the date of the collector's award, whichever period shall expire first.
Now let us examine latest precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. In Premji Nathu V/s State of Gujarat 2012 (3) GLR 2065 (SC) it is held that if notice U/sec. 12(2) is not accompanied by a copy of award, owner or person interested cannot effectively exercise his right to seek reference within 6 weeks from date of receipt of notice U/Sec. 18(2)(b). Hence, application fixed beyond 6 weeks from date of receipt not time barred. Further, it is for State Government to show that notice U/sec. 12(2) was accompanied by a copy of award.
Page 3 of 5 C/FA/2084/2018 ORDERThe claimant has also produced the same village judgment vide Exh. 19 of Reference Court. The claimant has produced his chief examination vide Exh. 17, in which he has mentioned that he accepted an amount of compensation with objection. That shows that he has received compensation of acquired land. The award U/s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in present reference has been passed on 29.04.1986. The other side Advocate did not cross the claimant on the ground of limitation. But, as per the evidence on record, this court can evaluate that after passing an award U/s. 11 the claimant has filed his objections before the collector on 06.09.1993. That means after seven and half years passage of an award U/s. 11.
As we have discussed earlier Sec. 18(2) is very clear about the limitation of time in case of filing reference before the Collector. However, as we have discussed earlier the law laid down in the judgment of Premji Nathu V/s. State of Gujarat 2012(3), GLR 2065 (SC), the constructive notice of an award or acquisition is necessary part for counting time limit of filing reference. The actually or constructively 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 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 of its transferee being entered in revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In this matter, the claimant has mentioned in his examination of chief on oath that he has accepted the amount of award with objection. That means as and when he had Page 4 of 5 C/FA/2084/2018 ORDER received the amount of compensation, he got the constructive notice of acquisition. But, he has filed his objection beyond limitation. The issue of limitation has been framed by my Predecessor, the claimant has never the less tried to bring any evidence before the Court to bring his case within limitation.
So, as per the law laid down in above judgment of Apex Court claimant was within knowledge of acquisition on the basis of construction notice and as per the provision of Section-18(2) this reference is not filed within time limit. Hence, reference is not tenable. Hence, I answer Issue No. 3 is "negative" and hence, there is no question to discuss another issues in detail. Hence, I answer Issue Nos. 1 & 2 in "negative" and pass the following order with regard to issue no. 4:"
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, more particularly, the findings recorded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, on the issue of limitation, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Court below in holding that the reference was time barred. I am convinced with the reasons assigned by the Court below.
9. In view of the above, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J) Bhoomi Page 5 of 5