Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Putta Lakshmaiah vs Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 5 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(5)ALD123, 2001(5)ALT98
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Appellants in all these appeals are the claimants in OP Nos. 28 to 33 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kandukur. Since a common question of law is raised, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order.
2. Certain extents of lands of these appellants were acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the members of the weaker sections of the society. Though certain amount of compensation was offered to these appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer the appellants-claimants received the same under protest and sought reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") to the civil Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. Thus, the claim of the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation was referred to the civil Court - Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kandukur in OP Nos.28 to 33 of 1995.
3. When these OPs fell for consideration before the civil Court below, the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer took a preliminary objection on the question of maintainability of the reference before the civil Court on the ground that it was belated and not within the prescribed time as provided under Section 18(2) of the Act. It was further submitted by the Assistant Government Pleader before the civil Court that all these appellants were presented by the Counsel at the time of the award enquiry which concluded on 17-9-1984 and the award was passed on 23-9-1994. If at all the appellants were aggrieved by the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, they should have sought reference to the civil Court within a period of six weeks from the date of the award which concluded on 23-9-1984. Agreeing with the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the civil Court dismissed all the OPs filed by the appellants-claimants by an order dated 29-4-1993 holding that the reference is made beyond the time stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. It is this order of the civil Court dated 29-4-1993 made in OP Nos.28 to 33 of 1995 which is assailed in these appeals before us on various grounds.
4. On behalf of the appellants-claimants, it is submitted by Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Counsel that the civil Court fell in error in accepting the submissions advanced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that the reference sought by these appellants is beyond the stipulated time as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, whereas the State Amendment brought in for clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, two months time is available to the claimants seeking reference to the civil Court from the date of service of award notice by the Land Acquisition Officer. Counsel submitted that the civil Court without regard to this provision held that the reference to the civil Court is time-barred and dismissed the OPs filed by these appellants-claimants, which is unsustainable. Counsel, therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned orders made by the civil Court.
5. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents on the contrary submits that since these claimants were represented by an advocate at the time of award enquiry and the award having been passed on 23-9-1984 by the Land Acquisition Officer, six weeks time was available to these claimants from the date of passing the award, to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court. Learned Government Pleader stated that the limitation for seeking reference under Section 18(2)(a) of the Act, in cases when the parties are present or represented before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing the award, is six weeks from the date of passing the award. Clarifying this position, Seamed Government Pleader submits that as the award was passed on 23-9-1984, the period of limitation of six weeks for reference under Section 18(2)(a) of the Act commenced from 24-9-1984 and ended on 6/7th of November, 1984. As the appellants-claimants have sought reference only on 19-11-1984, i.e., beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 18(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, Learned Government Pleader submitted that the civil Court has rightly dismissed the OPs filed by the appellants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders passed by the civil Court.
6. In order to appreciate these contentions, few relevant facts are traced hereunder:
Certain extents of lands of these appellants situated in Narasimham Nayuni Khandrika village were acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house-sites to the members belonging to the weaker sections of the society by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 22-9-1984. Notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act were also served on the claimants on 19-8-1984. During the course of enquiry, these claimants claimed compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. The appellants-claimants were represented by an advocate before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer though completed the award enquiry on 17-9-1984, but passed the award only on 23-9-1984 granting compensation to the appellants-claimants at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per acre. Thereafter, notices were sent to the awardees as required under Section 12(2) of the Act which were received by them on 8-11-1984. After receipt of the notices, the claimants received compensation only on 19-11-1984 under protest and sought reference to the civil Court seeking enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act on the same day i.e., on 19-11-1984. The Referring Officer has also recorded in his reference that on the basis of the record, he found that the awardees were served with notice of the award as required under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 8-11-1984 and at the time of receiving the compensation on 19-11-1984, the awardees presented a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to make a reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The Referring Officer further recorded that since the applicants have filed the petitioners within the stipulated time limit of two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the petitions to the Reference Court are valid.
7. The above particulars are gathered by us from the material papers made available before this Court which includes the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the civil Court, giving details about the land acquisition proceedings. The particulars gathered by us disclose that though the award enquiry was completed on 17-9-1984, but the award was passed only on 23-9-1984. Counsel for the appellants has admitted the fact of the appellants being represented by an advocate during the award proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. But, it appears that none representing the appellants was present before the Land Acquisition Officer when the award was passed i.e., on 23-9-1984. It would thus lead to an inference that none was present before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing the award on 23-9-1984.
8. We shall now refer to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act which are relevant for our purpose to decide whether the reference sought by the appellants-claimants is barred by time as contended on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer.
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 the 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 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, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
State Amendments Andhra Pradesh :--For clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Principal Act, the following clause shall be substituted, namely:
(b) in other cases, within two months from the date of service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2).
9. A reading of the provisions contemplated under Section 18 of the Act would make it clear at the time of passing of the award by the Collector, the person making the application seeking reference to the civil Court is present or represented, time available for seeking reference is six weeks. However, if nobody is present at the time of passing the award by the Collector, two alternatives are provided under clause (b) of Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, firstly, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 12; and secondly, within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. However, by virtue of the State Amendment brought by the State of Andhra Pradesh to clause (b) of the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Principal Act, two months period is available for making an application under reference to the civil Court, from the date of service of the notice from the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 12.
10. Though the appellants admit the fact that during the period of award enquiry which concluded on 17-9-1984, they were represented by a Counsel, but as seen from the record of the award proceedings, none represented them on the date of passing of the award i.e., on 23-9-1984. That apart, the Referring Officer has categorically mentioned in his reference that the claimants have received the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act on 8-11-1984, on 19-11-1984 they received the compensation under protest and on the same day i.e., 19-11-1984 they sought reference to the civil Court. Therefore, in view of these facts recorded by the Referring Officer himself in the reference proceedings, by virtue of the State Amendment brought by the State of Andhra Pradesh to clause (b) of the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Principal Act, we hold that the appellants-claimants are entitled for two months period from the date of service of the notice from the Land Acquisition Officer under subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Act, for making an application seeking reference to the civil Court. Since the Land Acquisition Officer himself has indicated in the Reference Proceedings that the notices under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act were served on the appellants on 8-11-1984, two months period would commence from that day for the appellants to make an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act.
11. Admittedly, the claimants have made an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act on 19-11-1984 on which date they received the compensation under protest which fact has been recorded by the Referring Officer himself. Therefore, in view of this factual position, there is no difficulty for us to hold that the period of limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act commences from 8-11-1984 i.e., the date on which notices under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act were served on the appellants and not from 23-9-1984 i.e., the date of passing of the award.
12. A Full Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, Singareni Collieries v. Dasari Ramulu and others, , while considering similar contingency relating to making an application for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhanced compensation by the claimants therein, at para 34 of the judgment held thus:
"(1) In Andhra Pradesh the limitation for seeking the reference under Section 18 is two months statutorily provided from the date of service of the notice by the Collector of the award;
(2).....
(3).....
(4) The burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice either actually or constructively, is on the State when the State intends to take advantage contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation. It is for the State to show the date on which the claimant acquired actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence".
13. Thus, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the above decision, if the State intends to take advantage of contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation, it is for the State to show the date on which the claimants acquired actually or constructively knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation commences.
14. In the instant case, the civil Court placing reliance upon the statement made before it by the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that the reference made by the appellants-claimants is time-barred, erroneously dismissed the claim petitions filed by these appellants without verifying the factual position as recorded by the Referring Officer in the referring proceedings. Had the civil Court taken some pains to verify the record proceedings, we are sure, the OPs filed by these appellants would not have been dismissed on technicalities.
15. Having regard to our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned orders dated 29-4-1993 made by the civil Court in OP Nos.28 to 33 of 1995 cannot be sustained and we accordingly set aside the same. Consequently, OP Nos.28 to 33 of 1995 are restored to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kandukur. The Subordinate Judge, Kandukur shall proceed to decide the said OPs on merits and according to law as expeditiously as possible, by giving due notices to all the contesting parties, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. These appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.