Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rai Sahib vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 December, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2819 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2819 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.12.2013
Rai Sahib ..... Appellant
vs
State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellant(s).
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA No.2819 to 2824 of 2011, as the same arise out of common acquisition. However, facts have been extracted from RFA No.2819 of 2011.
The present set of appeals has been filed against the award dated 24.05.2010, whereby the learned court below dismissed the objections filed by the land owner(s) on account of delay.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 12.12.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated in revenue estate of Village Lakhewali Dhab, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur for construction of Abulkhurana out fall drain. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.12.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,25,000/- per acre for Chahi and ` 1,60,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owner(s) filed objections, which were referred to Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector and dismissed the same as time barred vide award dated 24.05.2010. It is this award which is impugned in Devi Sharmila 2014.01.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 2819 of 2011 [2] the present set of appeals by the landowner(s).
It has been pleaded by the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned court below that the objections filed by the land owner were time barred are totally erroneous. It was further pleaded 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 knowledge of the Collector's award, whichever period expires first. It was further pleaded that the land was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 12.12.1997. The award was announced by the Collector on 30.11.2000. It was also pleaded that the petition has been filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of the award.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that delay in filing objections cannot be condoned as the appellant had received full and final amount without any protest on 30.11.2000 and the objections were filed on 19.7.2001. The learned court below has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant being time barred.
Heard learned counsel for the State 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 12.12.1997. The Collector announced the award on 30.11.2000. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellant on 19.7.2001. He has not denied the fact that he had received the amount awarded by the Collector after the award was announced.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellant are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from the date the appellant claimed knowledge. It is for the reason that admitted case of the appellant is that he had received the compensation awarded by the Collector on 30.11.2000.
Devi Sharmila 2014.01.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 2819 of 2011 [3]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 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.
Devi Sharmila 2014.01.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 2819 of 2011 [4]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 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 Devi Sharmila 2014.01.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 2819 of 2011 [5] 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 could be filed within six weeks from that date. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended.
If the facts of the present case are considered, the admitted position available on record is that the land owner had the knowledge of the award on 30.11.2000, when he received the compensation announced by the Collector. The objections were admittedly filed on 19.7.2001, which were clearly beyond the period of six weeks. 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, prima facie, no case for interference with the impugned award can be made out. However, as counsel for the appellant is not available, the appeals are dismissed for non- prosecution.
3.12.2013 (Rajesh Bindal)
sharmila Judge
Devi Sharmila
2014.01.08 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh