Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court of India

Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 4 July, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 3536, 2018 (8) SCC 266, 2018 (6) ABR 14, (2019) 142 REVDEC 520, (2019) 1 CLR 224 (SC), AIR 2018 SC (CIV) 2815, (2019) 2 MPLJ 529, (2019) 3 MAH LJ 580, (2018) 9 SCALE 234, (2018) 131 ALL LR 248, (2018) 3 CURCC 397, (2018) 190 ALLINDCAS 92 (SC), (2019) 3 ALLMR 967 (SC), (2018) 5 ANDHLD 131, 2018 (4) KCCR SN 464 (SC)

Author: N.V. Ramana

Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N. V. Ramana

                                                                           REPORTABLE
                                                     1

                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                   CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6003­6004/2018 
                            (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516­27517/2014)
          Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade                                       …Appellant (s)


                                                  Versus


          State of Maharashtra Through the Collector       … Respondent (s)

With  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6006­6007/2018     (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.16339­16340/2018) (Arising out of SLP (C)………….CC No. 17187/2014)  J U D G M E N T   N .   V .   R A M A N A ,   J  .

Civil Appeal Nos.6003­6004/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516­27517/2014)

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.07.17 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996.

Reason:  2

3. A brief reference to facts of the case may be necessary for the   disposal   of   this   case.   The   predecessor   interest   of   the appellant herein was the owner of the property in dispute. In   the   year   1985,   the   disputed   land,   was   proposed   to   be acquired by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC Corporation, Amravati   for   construction   of   city   service   terminus   at Amravati. Required Notification under Section 126 (4) of the MRTP Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act   was   published   in   the   Government   Gazette   dated 05.12.1985.   Thereafter   the   objections   from   the   interested parties were heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Zilla   Parishad   Works,   Amravati.   By   a   final   order   dated 30.11.1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award, wherein an amount of Rs. 5,83,366/­ was payable by   the   respondent   authorities to  the appellant herein. On 21.12.1987,   the   predecessor   interest   of   the   appellant received a notice from the collector/Land Acquisition Officer informing   them   about   the   award   being   passed   on 30.11.1987, which is reproduced as under­  3 You   are   hereby   given   notice   that   you   are being   treated   as   person   interested   in   the above­mentioned   case.   In   the   said   case   on 30.11.1987, I, have pronounced the following Award   under   sub­section  1 of Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

(1)The   area   of   the   land   is   704.31   sq. meters in plot No. 3.

(2)The   amount   of   Rs.   2,58,849.00   as compensation be given for the land. (3)The   amount of  compensation  has  been divided as follows:­ …..

…..

(2)   The   amount   payable   to   you   is Rs.2,58,849.00.   You   personally   or   through authorized   representative   should   remain present   before   me   on   28.12.1987.   You   can receive   the   compensation   under   protest   so that there is no impediment in your right to send reference to the Civil Court in respect of this case. 

It may be noted that the actual award was not enclosed with the   aforesaid   notice   and   the   predecessor   interest   of   the appellant   received   the certified copy  of  the award only  on 03.02.1988. On 09.02.1988, the predecessor interest of the appellant,   aggrieved   by  the  compensation  awarded to  him by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer,   filed   a   reference against the award for enhancement of compensation under  4 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the predecessor   interest   of   the   appellant,   had   received   the award   amount   under   protest,   that   the   reference   for enhancement was pending.

4. The Reference Court (Court of Civil Judge), after hearing the parties   concerned,   partly   allowed   the   reference   and increased   the   compensation   from   Rs.   110/­   per   square meter to Rs. 210/­ per square meter. It may not be out of context   to   note   that   respondent   authority   had   not   raised any issue on limitation. 

5. Aggrieved,   both   parties,   filed   Cross   appeals   being   First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and the   present   matter   was   tagged   along   with   various   other similar   petitions.   The   High   Court   by   order   dated, 07.10.2010,   while   remanding   the   matter   back   to   the Reference Court on the issue of limitation, kept the matter pending before the High Court in the following manner­ On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Record and proceedings along with the copy of Section 12(2)   notices,   which   were   sought   to   be produced   by   the   learned   Assistant Government Pleaders before this Court at  5 the time of the arguments that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to refer the   issue   of   limitation   to   the   reference Court from whose judgments, the appeals are preferred by invoking the provisions of Order   41   Rule   25   of   the   Code   of   Civil Procedure,   since   the   reference   Court   has omitted   and   failed   to   frame   and   try   the issue of limitation, which essentially ought to   have   been   decided   before   deciding   the reference applications on merit.

Hence,   by   keeping   all   these   first   appeals pending   in   High   Court,   the   issue   of limitation is referred to the reference Court for   trial   after   granting   an   opportunity   to the parties to amend the pleadings on the issue   of   limitation   and   also   to   tender evidence   on   the  said  issue.  The  reference Court   is   directed   to   try   the   issue   of limitation in all these cases within a period of six months from the date of appearance of   the   parties   before   the   reference   Court and   shall  return the  record  to this Court and   shall  return the  record  to this Court together   with   its   findings   on   the   issue   of limitation along with the reasons therefor.

6. On remand, the reference Court granted opportunity to the parties   to   lead   evidence   and   upon   hearing   the   parties,   it passed judgment and order dated 11.10.2011. The reference court,   found   that   the   predecessor   interest   had   filed   the reference   for   enhancement,   before   the   expiry   of   the limitation   as   they   became   aware   of   the   contents   of   the  6 award only on 03.02.1988 and not when a notice informing the award was sent.

7. The High court resumed hearing of the case, after receiving the order of the Reference Court on remand. The High Court again   dealt   with   the   contention   concerning   the   issue   of limitation and concluded, by order dated 14.07.2014, that the   appellants   herein,   had   not   filed   the   reference   for enhancement of compensation within the time limitation, in the following manner­

10. The next submission made by Mr. K.H. Deshpande,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   is that the details about the Award in order to raise a challenge or grounds to be taken in   the   reference   Application,   could   be available only after obtaining certified copy of the Award and a mere visit to the office of the Land Acquisition officer for receipt of compensation   on   28th  December,   1987 cannot   be   taken   to   mean   that   the claimants   were   posted   with   the   details   of the Award in order to raise a challenge. It is   an   admitted   fact   that   all   the claimants   received   compensation   on  28     th December,   1987   and,   therefore, constructively   and   practically,   they must   be   posted   with   the   knowledge about   the   contents   and   details   of   the  award .

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.

9. The main contention canvassed by the appellants, in these Civil   Appeals,   is   whether   an   effective   notice   of   the   award was provided to the appellant herein, as per the mandate of Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 

10. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   Ms.   Bansuri   Swaraj, relies   on   the   judgment   of  Premji   Nathu   v.   State   of Gujarat and Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 250, wherein this court has observed as under­

20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen   whether   the   conclusion   recorded   by the   Reference   Court,   which   has   been approved   by   the   High   Court   that   the application   filed   by   the   appellant   was barred by time is legally sustainable.

21.  A   careful   reading   of   the averments   contained   in   Para   2   of   the application filed by the appellant under Section   18(1)   shows   that   the   notice issued   by   the   Collector   under   Section 12(2)   was   served   upon   him   on   22­2­ 1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified   copy   of   the   award   and   filed application dated 8­4­1985 for making a  8 reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of the award had not been sent to   the   appellant   along   with   the   notice and   without   that   he   could   not   have effectively   made   an   application   for seeking reference.

22. On behalf of the State Government, no   evidence   was   produced   before   the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award was sent to the appellant along with   the   notice.   Unfortunately,   while deciding   Issue   3,   this   aspect   has   been totally   ignored   by   the   Reference   Court which   mechanically   concluded   that   the application   filed  on  8­4­1985  was  beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court also committed serious error by approving the   view   taken   by   the   Reference   Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice   issued   by   the   Collector   under Section   12(2)   was   not   accompanied   by   a copy of the award which was essential for effective   exercise   of   right   vested   in   the appellant   to  seek reference under  Section 18(1).

(emphasis supplied)

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government, has   not   disputed   the   aforesaid   proposition   of   law. Accordingly,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the present case as the notice dated 4.12.1987, was not accompanied with the award. In this case, there could not have been a valid notice  9 of the award, by  letter dated 4.12.1987, under sub­section (2)   of   Section   12   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   until   the appellant received a certified copy of the award, which he did   on   03.02.1988.   Therefore,   the   reference   for enhancement   was,   accordingly,   not   barred   by   limitation.

12. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, we   set   aside   the   order   of   the   High   Court   concerning   the point of limitation and remand the matters back for fresh consideration   on   merits   of   the   case  inter   alia,   as   to   the quantum   of   compensation.   Taking   into   consideration,   the long pendency, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

13. The appeals are disposed of in the afore­stated terms. Civil Appeal Nos.6006­6007 of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16339­16340/2018) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. ………….CC No. 17187 of 2014)

14. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted. 

15. Application for deletion of respondent no. 3 in Special Leave Petition   arising   out   of   First   Appeal   No.   35   of   1996   is allowed.

16. Leave granted.

17. As   these   appeals   are   filed   against   the   same   impugned judgment   and   order   dt.   14.07.2014   passed   by   the   High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and having the same question of law, these appeals are also disposed of in a sequel to the discussion set out above.

…………………………..J.                                                          (N. V. Ramana) …………………………..J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar) New Delhi 4th July, 2018.