Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jalmi Ram And Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 6 July, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 237 of 2017 .
Decided on: 06.07.2018 Jalmi Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and another ...Respondents Coram r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Ms. Rameeta Kumari, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (Oral) Instant petition has been filed against order, dated 24th January, 2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, South Zone Winter Field, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'Land Acquisition Collector'), whereby he has refused to refer the application of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 2 petitioners to District Judge for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred .
to as 'the Act') for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of land for construction of KatoluGanviJagori road in case No. SML16/88 vide award, dated 28th May, 1999, on the under law.
r to ground that application was not filed within time prescribed
2. The case of the petitioners is that the application was within time from the date of knowledge of the award to the land ownerspetitioners whereas the stand of the respondentsState is that the award was passed in the year 1999 and the application for making reference was preferred on 19th August, 2016, i.e. after seventeen years of passing of the award.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation amount in pursuance to the award passed in the year 1999 was disbursed on 18 th July, 2016 whereupon the petitioners came to know about the contents ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 3 of the award and immediately thereafter, certified copy of award was applied on 20th July, 2016, which was attested .
and received on 27th July, 2016, whereafter application for making reference under Section 18 of the Act was moved to the Land Acquisition Collector on 19 th August, 2016 and, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioners was petitioners.
r to well within the time available under law to the land owners
4. The said contention of the petitioners has been refuted by the respondentsState by claiming, on the basis of CD Form submitted on 2nd November, 2008 for obtaining copy of award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram (father of petitioners No. 1 to 6) had received copy of award in the year 2008 and as such, the land owner was having knowledge of contents of the award in the year 2008 disentitling the petitioners to claim that they attained the knowledge of contents of the award only after disbursement of the amount of compensation in July, 2016.
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 45. Referring the statement of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram made on 23rd April, 1999, before Land Acquisition .
Officer/Collector, it is also canvassed on behalf of the respondentsState that said Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram also remained associated in the acquisition proceedings in the year 1999.
6. The issue with regard to period available to the land owners for preferring application under Section 18 of the Act is not res integra and has been settled as long back in the year 2010 vide pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Bhagwan Das and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545, wherein one of the four issues decided is as under:
"6. The following questions arise for consideration, on the contentions urged:
(a) ...........
(b) ..........
(c) Whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act should be reckoned from the date of ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 5 knowledge of the award of the Collector or from the date of award itself?
.
(d) ............"
7. After considering its earlier decisions, including the basic pronouncement in case titled as Harish Chandra Raj Singh versus Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, and also the provisions of law, it has been concluded by the apex Court in Bhagwan Das's case (supra) as under:
"28. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act :
(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, ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 6 he has to make the application within six months of the date on 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."
8. Record of the Land Acquisition Collector has also been requisitioned wherein it is reported by the concerned Patwari and endorsed by the Kanungo in the Office of Land Acquisition Collector that award, dated 28th May, 1999 / 2nd June, 1999 was passed in the absence of petitioners and as per record, notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was also not issued, however, Dwaroo was associated and present during the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act on 23 rd April, 1999, but, there is nothing on record with regard to informing him about passing of the award.
9. As per report, notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners after deposit of amount ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 7 with the Collector and the amount was received by petitioners on 18th July, 2016. It is also reported that as per .
record, land ownerDwaroo had received copy of award on 26th November, 2008 through Copying Agency and, therefore, at the time of preferring application for making reference, eight years had elapsed after receiving the copy of award by Dwaroo.
10. to Considering the said report, Land Acquisition Collector has passed the impugned order and refused to make a reference to the District Judge. Hence, the present petition.
11. From the record, it is evident that land owners were not present at the time of passing of the award; no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued; notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation was issued in the year 2016 and the amount was disbursed on 18th July, 2016.
12. The fact that Dwaroo Ram had received copy of award in November, 2008 has been disputed by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 8 petitioners by filing a copy of death certificate of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram alongwith jamabandi of land owned and .
possessed by Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram, mutated in favour of his legal heirs on 30th January, 2006. Statement showing compensation of each holdings of Village Ganvi has also been placed on record wherein Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram s/o
13. to Bhagsi has been shown as one of the claimants.
From the death certificate placed on record, which remained uncontroverted, it is apparent that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram had expired on 1st January, 2005.
Therefore, plea of respondentsState that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram had received copy of award in the year 2008 is not sustainable, more particularly, when the CD Form, placed on record by the respondentsState, does not find mention name of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram or his legal heirs as applicant(s) in the said form/application.
14. The said application has been filed by some Prem Paul, Advocate. There is nothing on record to verify that the said Prem Paul was an Advocate and was ever engaged by ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 9 petitioners; and for whom he had applied for the copy of the award; and as to whether the said application was filed on .
behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of someone else for any other purpose. Purpose for which the copy had been applied has been shown as 'for execution', but, the fact remains that no such execution was ever preferred by the petitioners or
15. to anybody else on behalf of the land owners.
Association of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram in proceedings conducted under Section 9 of the Act on 23 rd April, 1999 also does not make any difference as it is admitted case of the respondentsState that award was passed in absence of the land owners and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever issued. From the record, the only time when the petitioners were informed about passing of the award is 14th July, 2016, when notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act was issued to them and they received the compensation amount whereafter the application for reference was preferred on 19th August, 2016.
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 1016. As per pronouncement of the apex Court in Bhagwan Das's case (supra), the present case is covered .
by para 28 (iii) of the said judgment, which provides that if the person interested was not present when the award is made and if he does not receive notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act from the Collector, he has to make application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award.
17. In present case, contents of the award came to the actual or constructive knowledge of the petitioners in July, 2018 and, therefore, application preferred by them was will within the prescribed period of limitation.
18. For the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to transmit the application preferred by the petitioners to the concerned District Judge for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act within three weeks from today.
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP 1119. Petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any, in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
July 06, 2018
( rajni )
r to
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2018 23:00:03 :::HCHP