Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jit Kaur And Others vs Ministry Of Railways And Others on 18 January, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 4368 of 2011 [1]
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 4368 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.1.2012
Jit Kaur and others ..... Appellants
vs
Ministry of Railways and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. . This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 4368 to 4370 of 2011,
arising out of the same acquisition, where the learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the land owners on account of delay as well as on merits.
Briefly, the facts are that land situated in village Aima Mangat, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for doubling the railway line between Jalandhar Cantonment to Jammu Tavi vide notification dated 6th/9th August 2004, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 6.11.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 46,667/- per marla. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below on both the counts, namely, that the references filed by the land owners were time barred and on merits, that no case for further enhancement had been made out, are totally erroneous. He R.F.A. No. 4368 of 2011 [2] submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period expires first. The submission is that in the present case, the land was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated dated 6th/9th August 2004. Though the award was announced on 6.11.2006, but the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners, which was paid only on 16.1.2007 and the objections, which were filed on 18.4.2007, were within limitation of six months as enumerated under Section 18(2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award. The knowledge in the present case has to be considered on the date on which the amount of compensation was paid to the appellants. He further submitted that even for getting the amount of compensation, after the possession of the land was taken by the State, they had to file writ petitions in this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper- book.
The facts, which are evident from the record are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6th/9th August 2004. The Collector announced the award on 6.11.2006. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellants on 18.4.2007. The landowners had even admitted their presence at the time of announcement of award by the Collector on 6.11.2006.
As regards payment of compensation is concerned, the land owners claimed that it was paid on 16.1.2007 and not at the time of announcement of the award and if the same be treated as date of knowledge then also the limitation expired on 28.2.2007.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellants are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from R.F.A. No. 4368 of 2011 [3] the date the appellants claimed that they received the amount of compensation or from the date they admittedly had the knowledge of announcement of the award. It is for the reason that admitted case of the parties is that at the time of announcement of the award, the appellants were present.
Section 18 of the Act is extracted below:
" 18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (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 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."
The aforesaid section provides that in case any person interested does not accept the award, he may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred to the court. The objections can be regarding measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The application should contain the grounds on which the award is objected to. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides for the period in which the objections could be filed. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case a person is present or represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of the award, the R.F.A. No. 4368 of 2011 [4] objections can be filed within six months from the date of the Collector's award. Clause (b) provides that in other cases, the objections can be filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period expires first.
In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Sham Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996)9 SCC 414, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether limitation provided for under Section 18(2) of the Act for filing objections can be extended and it was answered in the negative. Paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof are extracted below:
"17. It is to be remembered that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) was enacted prescribing the limitation to exercise the power under Sections 4, 6 and 11 and also excluded the time occupied due to stay granted by the courts. Taking cognizance of the limitation prescribed in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the provisions of the Limitation Act were not expressly extended. Though Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is available, and the limitation in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 may be treated to be special law, in the absence of such an application by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984), the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the court and the Collector/LAO performs only statutory duties under the Act, including one while making reference under Section 18. It is difficult to construe that the Collector/LAO while making reference under Section 18, as statutory authority still acts as a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
18. Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of R.F.A. No. 4368 of 2011 [5] Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1). Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 18. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act."
The same view was followed in State of Karnataka v.
Laxuman, (2005) 8 SCC 709.
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, that in case the land owner or his representative was present at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed either within six weeks from that date. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended. In the present case, the landowners had even admitted their presence at the time of announcement of award by the Collector.
If the facts of the present case are considered, the admitted position available on record is that the land owners had the knowledge of the award on 6.11.2006. The objections were admittedly filed on 18.4.2007, which were clearly beyond the period of six weeks from the date of knowledge of the award. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned court below holding the objections to be beyond limitation.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no case for enhancement of value of acquired land can be made out.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeals are also dismissed.
18.1.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge