Delhi District Court
Sh. Khem Chand S/O Sh. Hoshiyar Singh vs Union Of India Through on 2 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No.182A/08
U ID No. 02404C0133402008
IN RE :
1. Sh. Khem Chand S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh
2. a) Smt.Bikro Devi W/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh (Since deceased) through
her Legal heirs, i.e. petitioner no.2 (b) to 2(f) below :
b) Sh. Dharam Pal s/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
c) Sh. Jage Ram s/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
d) Sh. Dhan Singh s/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
e) Sh. Jaipal s/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
f) Smt. Sarbati Devi D/o s/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
3. Sh. Sukhbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Kabool Singh
4. a) Smt. Katari Devi W/o Late Sh.Mohinder Singh
b) Sh.Rajinder Singh S/o Late Sh.Mohinder Singh
(Both deceased through LRs)
i) Sh. Shiela Devi W/o Late Sh.Rajinder Singh
ii) Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Late Sh.Rajinder Singh
iii) Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Late Sh.Rajinder Singh
All R/o H. No.1833, Village Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi
iv) Smt. Manphool D/o Late Sh. Rajinder Singh, w/o Sh.Babloo
Singh, R/o Village Bant, Distt. Muzafar Nagar, UP
v) Smt. Pinky D/o Late Sh. Rajinder Singh W/o Sh. Puspender, R/o
Village Dogat, Distt. Baghpat, UP
5. a) Smt. Prakashi Devi W/o Late Sh. Nanhey Ram
b) Sh. Prem S/o Late Sh. Nanhey Ram
c) Sh. Raj Singh S/o Late Sh. Nanhey Ram
d) Sh. Raj Pal S/o Late Sh. Nanhey Ram
6. Sh. Nath Singh @ Nathu S/o Sh. Chajjan
7. Sh. Chandru, his reference separated vide order dated 12.03.2010
8. Sh. Garib Ram S/o Sh. Chandgi (since deceased)through his Legal heirs
a) Smt. Ballo Devi W/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
LAC No. 182A/08 Page 1 of 27
b) Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
c) Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
d) Sh. Lokesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
e) Sh. Narinder Kumar S/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
f) Smt. Munni Devi @ Munesh Devi D/o Late Sh. Garib Ram
All R/o H. No. 1084, Village Mamurpur, Delhi
9. Sh. Jitender S/o Sh. Om Prakash
10. Sh. Ram Gopal S/o Sh. Chottu
11. a) Smt. Rajo Devi W/o Late Sh. Karta Ram
b) Sh. Raj Pal S/o Late Sh. Karta Ram
12. Sh. Lakhmi Chand S/o Sh. Naurang Singh
13. Sh. Rattan Lal S/o Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased)through his LRs
a) Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Late Rattan Lal R/o 1804, Pana Mamurpur,
Narela Delhi
b) Smt. Savitri W/o Sh. Vijay Pal D/o Late Rattan Lal R/o Flat No.9,
Bhavishya Nidhi Enclave, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
14. Sh.Ram Nath (since deceased) through his Lrs
a) Sh. Ram Kishan (predeceased son) through his LRs.
i) Smt. Raj Kali W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
ii) Sh. Raj Pal S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
iii) Sh. Jag Pal S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
iv) Sh. Sanjiv Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
All R/o H. No. 7577 Rajiv Colony, Delhi
v) Smt. Rajesh W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar R/o DMS Flat, Hari Nagar,
Delhi
vi) Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Nempal R/o Village Kabari, Distt. Panipat,
Haryana
b) Sh. Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Nath R/o H. No. 7577, Rajiv Colony,
Delhi
c) Sh. Braham Parkash (predeceased son of Late Ram Nath)through LRs
i) Smt. Rajani Devi W/o Late Sh. Braham Parkash
ii) Sh. Sunny Deol s/o Late Sh. Braham Parkash
iii) Sh. Sunilo Kumar S/o Late Sh. Braham Parkash
iv) Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Late Sh. Braham Parkash
All R/o H. No. 1961/4, Panna Mamoorpur, Delhi
d) Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Late Ram Nath
e) Sh. Satyavir Singh S/o Late Ram Nath
LAC No. 182A/08 Page 2 of 27
f) Smt. Premwati W/o Late Sh. Parmod Kumar R/o Village Maujpur
Ghonda, Delhi
...... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA)
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN,
VIKAS SADAN, INA MARKET,
DELHI.
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 202/198687
Village MAMURPUR
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 19.09.86
Notification U/S 4 F.1(43)/63L&H
dt. 30.10.63
Notification U/s 6 F.1(43)/63/L&H
dt. 16.01.69
Date of Receipt of Reference : 15.07.2002
Date of Arguments : 02.07.2010
Date of Decision: 02.07.2010
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. This reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter LAC No. 182A/08 Page 3 of 27 called as LA Act), was sent to the reference court by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as LAC).
2. A large tract of Land measuring 9500 acre of land of village Mamurpur, Delhi, was acquired by the Govt. vide notification under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') issued on 30.10.1963. Notification u/s 6 was issued on 16.01.1969 for acquiring the land measuring 2180 bighas and 15 biswas. Thereafter, Award bearing no. 202/8687 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) on 19.09.86. The LAC had awarded the market price of the acquired land as Rs.6650/ per bigha.
3. The brief facts as stated in the reference are that petitioners were the owner/bhumidar of land bearing khasra no.43/26, 43/27 total measuring 13 Bighas 14 Biswas, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Mamurpur, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired by Govt. and LAC has passed the award granting Rs.6,650/ per bigha as market value to the petitioner.
4. Being dissatisfied to the said value he challanged the award by filing the reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since there was a interse dispute with regard to the impleadment of LR of petitioner no. 7, hence their reference was separated from the rest of the petitioners vide order dated 03.02.10.
5. Petitioners have stated in their joint reference that they were the owner of the land having khasra no. 43/26, 43/24 which was acquired by the government LAC No. 182A/08 Page 4 of 27 in the year 198485 and since they were in possession of the land which was wrongly vested in Gaon Sabha since long time as per section 74(4) of DLR Act, they become bhumidar of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4, hence they are entitle to compensation. It is further stated that LAC has not awarded appropriate market value as he has ignored the sale deed of village Mamurpur, Narela and also that land is fit for industrial purpose and market value of the land is not less than Rs.50,000/ per bigha. Further it is stated by the petitioner that petitioner received notice from Ld. ADJ in case u/s 3031 LA Act pertained to the dispute between the petitioner and Gaon Sabha and petitioner were entitle to receive compensation of the land in question. It is further stated by the petitioner that petitioner have no knowledge about the essential contents of the award regarding the acquired land as no notice u/s 4,6, 9, 10 and 12 of the act was served upon the petitioners and they came to know that payment of compensation was made to the petitioners on 10.09.2001, hence reference petitioner is within time. References was forwarded to this court by the LAC on 15.07.2002. It is further stated that the land in question is fit for residential purpose and the LAC has also ignored the sale deed of village Mamurpur and Narela and the land in question is fit for industrial purpose and the market value of the land in question is not less than Rs.50,000/ per bigha so the Collector should have awarded Rs.50,000/ per bigha as market value for the acquired land. It is further stated that land in question enjoy a great potentiality and there is a huge grain market in Narela and Mamurpur and facility of Railway Station also exist there.
6. Notice of the reference was issued to the petitioner and respondents. LAC No. 182A/08 Page 5 of 27
7. Respondent no. 1 UOI has only filed the Written Statement only. It is denied in the Written Statement that land in question is surrounded by the developed and underdeveloped colonies and can only be used for the purpose of agriculture. Further there was no structure, well and tubewell on the land in question at the time of notification u/s 4 of LA Act, hence petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation. UOI has also taken objection that since petitioners are not the recorded owner of the land therefore, they are not entitle to any compensation.
8. Respondent no. 2 DDA also filed Written Statement and has taken preliminary objections that LAC has taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of the adjoining land, which were made available to the LAC, hence petitioner are not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation and reference is liable to be dismissed. On merits DDA, respondent no. 2 has stated that petitioners are not the owner of the land. Further it was denied by the respondent no. 2 that no notice u/s 4,6,9,10 & 12 of the LA Act was ever served on the petitioner. It is further stated in the WS of DDA that land of the petitioner is not fit for industrial purpose and it has no potentiality and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for compensation @ Rs.50,000/ per bigha and it is further stated that award of LAC is just, adequate and correct and hence petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in compensation.
9. After the completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 19.12.02:
1. What right, title or interest, the petitioners have in the acquired land?
LAC No. 182A/08 Page 6 of 27
2. To what enhancement, if any in the compensation, the petitioners are entitled?
3. Relief.
10. Petitioner did not lead any evidence only tendered the certified copy of the ordersheet /proceedings of case no. LAC M/142A/2000 as Ex.P3 (colly).
11. Respondent has also not led any evidence and only tendered the copy fo the award as Ex. R1.
12. LR of Garib Ram petitioner no. 8 were substituted as LR vide order dated 22.09.2008.
13. LR of petitioner no. 13 were substituted vide order dated 23.03.2009.
14. During the pendency of petition, petitioner no. 14 expired and his LRs were substituted vide order dated 17.11.05.
15. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also carefully considered the record. My issuewise findings are given hereinafter. Issue no. 1 - What right, title or interest petitioner have in acquired land. 15.1 From the perusal of statement u/s 19 of the Land Acquisition Act sent by LAC is apparent that compensation was sent in the name of Gaon Sabha and sent to the Court of ADJ alongwith compensation amount of Rs.4,77,370.70 on 16.07.87. Ld. Counsels for the LAC No. 182A/08 Page 7 of 27 petitioners have contended that reference u/s 3031 of LA Act sent by the LAC had been decided in favour of the petitioners & compensation had already been paid to the petitioners. To prove this petitioner's counsel has relied upon certified copy of order sheet dated 08.05.2000 to 19.05.01 of the court of Sh. Raghubir Singh the then Ld. ADJ in case UOI Vs. G. S. Mamurpur, M142 A/2000 the compensation has been paid to the petitioner as per judgment dated 09.12.99. Further on perusal of judgment Ex. P1 dated 09.12.1999 passed in LAC case no. 90/93 titled as UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha Mamurpur it is proved that reference u/s 3031 with respect to the acquired land was decided in favour of the petitioners who were IP no. 2 to 17 and against the Gaon Sabha who was IP no. 1 and it was held by Ld. ADJ Ms. Reva Khetrapal that IP No. 2 to 17 are interested party to receive the compensation. Hence, I am of the view that petitioners have been able to prove that they are the owner/bhumidar of the acquired land and entitle to receive enhance compensation, if any.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
16. Issue no. 2 To what enhancement if any in the compensation petitioner are entitle?
16.1 The issue of entitlement of enhancement in compensation depends upon whether the reference petition fulfil all statutory requirement including that of limitation, if that issue is decided in favour of petitioners than it is to be seen whether petitioners are entitle to enhancement in market value of his land.
LAC No. 182A/08 Page 8 of 27 16.2 The period of limitation for filing reference petition for the enhancement of the compensation is given in section 18 of the Act itself and is as under: "Section 18.
(1)...
(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 sub section (2), or within six months from the date of the collector's award , whichever period shall first expire.
(c)
(d) Relief.
(e) Sub Section 2 of the section 12 of the act reads as under: Section 12.
(1) (2) The collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or their representatives when the award is made.
16.3 In the present case Land Acquisition Collector has passed the award LAC No. 182A/08 Page 9 of 27 on 19.09.86 whereas petitioners have filed these reference before LAC on 29.10.01. Thus the reference has been filed after a period of more than 15 years. Thus admittedly reference has filed after the period as prescribed in the section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16.4 The counsel for the petitioners have contended that as the petitioners were neither present on the date of announcement of the award nor any notice under section 12(2) of the act was served upon the petitioners, the limitation would commence from the date they acquire actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have further contended that the reference under section 30 31 was decided on 9.12.99 and then only the petitioner applied for the certified copy and came to know the essential contents of the award. The payment was received on 06.05.2000 and the application under section 18 of the act was filed on 02.06.2000 and the application is within limitation. In support of contention Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Versus The Deputy Land Acquisition officer A.I.R. 1961 SC 1500, State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Jehan Begum AIR 1963 SC 1604 and Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs. Union of India 1988 Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 in support of case.
16.5 On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondents have contended that the notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, in respect of the land in question was issued on 30.10.63. Notices under Section 9 LAC No. 182A/08 Page 10 of 27 and 10 of the Act were issued to the interested persons and pursuant to that 274 claims were filed by the claimants. The Award was announced on 19.09.86. The Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs.6,650/ per bigha. Though in the revenue record Gaon Sabha the recorded owner of land but since petitioners filed claim/objection before Land Acquisition Collector claiming themselves entitle to receive compensation instead of Gaon Sabha the dispute was referred to the reference Court under Section 3031 of L.A. Act, which was received in the Court on 20.07.87. The petitioner were aware about the announcement of the award and sending the reference under Section 3031 of the L.A. Act and persuaded her case before the reference Court till the decision of the said reference on 09.12.1999. Reference under Section 18 was filed on 29.10.01 more than 15 years after the announcement of the Award. The delay in preferring the reference for enhancement is clearly attributable to the petitioner and the reference is hopelessly barred by limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the same is liable to be dismissed. Respondents relied upon the case of Bale Ram Versus Union of India DLT 2005(121) page 454, State of Karnatka Versus Laxumam 2006 (1) LACC 13 and Parasottam Bhai Magan Bhai Patel and Others Versus State of Gujarat 2005 (2) LACC 467, Steel Authority of India Vs. S.U.T.N.I SANGAM VI (2009) SLT 491.
16.6 Admittedly reference has been filed after six months period i.e. Maximum period prescribed u/s 18 of LA Act. On Court query LAC LAC No. 182A/08 Page 11 of 27 has also informed that no notice u/s 12 (2) of LA Act was issued to the petitioners as notices are issued only to the recorded owner/bhumidar of the land as per NM (Naksha Muntazamin) after the announcement of award and since petitioners were not the recorded bhumidar at the time of acquisition of land no notice was issued to them. There is no evidence on record to know whether petitioners were present or not at the time of passing of the Award. Hence as per judgment of the Steel Authority of India Vs. SUTNI SANGAM (Supra) period of limitation will start running from the date when petitioner got the actual or an constructional knowledge of the passing of the award, enabling them to file the claim as per provisions of section 18 of the LA Act.
Petitioners have contested reference u/s 3031 sent by LAC which is proved from the document Ex. P1 which is certified copy of the judgment passed by Ld. ADJ Ms.Reva Khetrapal in LAC No. 90/93 titled as UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha, Mamoorpur decided on 09.1299 where by petitioners were held to be entitle to receive compensation of acquired land. Certified copy of the said judgment has been filed by petitioners themselves to prove that they are the owner of the land, thus there is no ground not to rely the same through same has not been proved in evidence. Further though there is nothing on record whether petitioners have filed any objection before the LAC, however, since the LAC has sent reference u/s 3031, presumption arise it may have been sent on the application filed by the petitioner regarding not releasing compensation to Gaon Sabha. Thus petitioners have knowledge of passing of award at the time of LAC No. 182A/08 Page 12 of 27 passing of award or if not atleast at that time when they receive notice of reference u/s 3031 from the court way back in 1980s as reference was sent by the LAC in the court in year 1987. So now the question is whether they have knowledge of the contents of the award or not.
16.7 What are the essential contents of the award whose actual or constructive knowledge is necessary to file the reference under section 18 of the act? In para 10 of the case of Bale Ram (supra) it is held that "...A person who has not accepted the award and has received the compensation under protest would be able to take effective recourse to the provisions of section 18 of the Act praying for a reference to the court of competent jurisdiction for enhancement of the awarded compensation only if he is aware about extent of compensation, the extent of land and the number as well as the market value of the land determined there under. These basis would constitute a complete cause of action for an applicant desirous of invoking the provisions of section 18 of the act and subject to the conditions stipulated in law..."
16.8 Even under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector while making the Award needs to determine (1) the true area of the land (2) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and (3) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have LAC No. 182A/08 Page 13 of 27 respectively appeared before him.
Therefore, the essential contents of the award would be (1) extent of compensation (2) extent of land acquired (3) number (4) as well as market value of the land determined there under.
16.9 Since petitioners were contesting reference u/s 3031 they were very well aware about the extent of land acquired and the khasra no. of the land as it is stated in para 4 of judgment Ex. P1 filed by the petitioners themselves. As it is mentioned in the judgment that "it was further stated by them that they were given the land in khasra no. 43/26 & 43/27 by the land owner of the village for residential purpose".
16.10 Market value of the land determined by the collector is one of the essential contents of the Award which a party must know before filing reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. 16.11 It is important to find out whether the petitioner had knowledge, actual or constructive, of market value of the land determined by the Collector. The onus is on the petitioner to prove that he had no knowledge either actual or constructional to the market value of the land as it was held in Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of UP AIR 2010 (SC) 1532 that:
"when a person interested make an application for reference seeking the benefit of six month from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representatives) LAC No. 182A/08 Page 14 of 27 were not present when the award was made that he did not receive any notice u/s 12(2) of the Act and that he did not have the knowledge of the content of Award during the period of six month period to file application for reference. Petitioner has not entered into witness box to prove when he got the knowledge of the content of the Award."
16.12 Further from the document Ex. P1 filed by the petitioner it is proved that there was a dispute with regard to title over land in question and the Collector had referred the dispute before the Civil Court under Section 3031 of Land Acquisition Act. In each and every reference under Section 3031 of Land Acquisition Act LAC has sent a memorandum in which not only the disputed amount of compensation is stated but the compensation is also deposited with the Court by the Collector. Further LAC mentioned the area of the land under dispute and its khasra numbers in the memorandum sent to the Court. As proved from the document Ex.P1. After deciding the reference the Court releases the compensation in favour of successful interested person. Every contesting interested person is therefore aware of the market value determined by the Collector and the amount deposited in the Court. A copy of Award is also enclosed in said reference. Petitioners had successfully contested the reference. The petitioners were represented by advocate all through the proceedings. Therefore, it is proved that the petitioners were aware of the amount of compensation for which they were contesting the reference under Section 3031 of L.A. Act, or they had opportunity to know the contents of award by inspecting the file of the case. LAC No. 182A/08 Page 15 of 27 16.13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Chandra cited the case of Muthi Chettiar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras ILR 1951 815 where it is held that: "If a person is given a right to resort to a remedy to get rid of an adverse order within a prescribed time, limitation should not be computed from a date earlier than that on which the party aggrieved actually knew of the order or had an opportunity of knowing the order and therefore, must be presumed to have knowledge of the order".
Further in the case of State of Punjab Versus Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 which was followed in the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Versus State of Maharashtra 2005 (7) SCC 440, it is noted that under the scheme of Act, LAC is not required to give a copy of the Award to the party present at the time of announcement of the Award or along with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. A party intending to challenge the Award has to inspect the same or take a certified copy from the Collector.
The Award was passed in the year 1986. Petitioners have knowledge of passing of the award. Nothing prevented the petitioner to either inspect the Award file or took certified copy from LAC Office or Court for almost 15 years. Thus it is proved that the petitioners diligently contested reference petition under Section 3031 of L.A. Act where the amount of compensation is mentioned and deposited in Court and petitioners had opportunity of inspecting the Award or taking its certified copy leads to inference that petitioner had LAC No. 182A/08 Page 16 of 27 knowledge of market value fixed by the Collector or at least had constructive knowledge of the same. Knowledge whether actual or constructive is sufficient for the purposes of computing limitation, even otherwise petitioners have contended that they filed the present reference without taking knowledge of the content of the award as it is apparent from para 10 of the reference petition filed by the petitioner relevant lines of para is reproduced as below:
"It may not be out of place to mention here that at present also the petitioners have no knowledge about the contents of the award."
Thus if petitioner can file reference after 15 years without alleged knowledge of contents of award, nothing can prevent them to file the same earlier also.
16.14 As far as case relied upon by the petitioner's counsel same is not applicable to the fact of present case.
The first case relied upon by petitioner is of Raja Harish Chander. In this case, the award was passed on 25.03.1951. Neither the petitioner was present at the time of announcement of the award nor notice under section 12(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner claimed information of the award on 13.01.1953 and filed an application under section 18 of the Act on 24.02.1953. The land acquisition collector dismissed the application being time barred.. The single judge of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order of the L.A.C. and set aside the order of Collector. The Devision Bench in appeal set aside LAC No. 182A/08 Page 17 of 27 order of Single Judge holding the reference as time barred. That is how the matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme court held that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. Therefore the literal and mechanical construction of the words "the date of the award"
occurring in section 18 of the act would not be appropriate. The Appeal was allowed and it was held that the reference was within limitation.
16.15 The case of Harish Chandra is an authority for proposition that the date of Award is not the day when Collector signed the Award but when the petitioner came to know actual or constructive knowledge of Award.
The facts of Harish Chandra case are different from the facts of present reference inasmuch as the present petitioner had evinced knowledge of essential contents of the award as he was contesting reference u/s 3031 where in entire detail essential for fly the award was mention in the memorandum itself.
16.16 The second case relied upon by the Petitioner is Mst. Qaiser Jehan Begum. In this case the award was passed on 25.10.1953. Neither the collector notified the respondents about the acquisition nor were LAC No. 182A/08 Page 18 of 27 they present on the date of announcement of the award. The Collector, by mistake treated the properties as evacuee properties. On 25.12.1954 the respondents made an application to the collector for early release of the money of compensation without prejudice to their claim to ask for enhanced compensation. Compensation was given on 22.07.1955 and application under section 18 of the Act was filed on 30.09.1955. The application was referred to the civil court for adjudication. The application was dismissed on the ground of limitation as it was held that the date of knowledge of the award would be 25.12.1954 when the respondents filed application for interim payment and application under section 18 of the Act was filed beyond six months from the application dated 25.12.1954. In appeal the Hon'ble High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and that is how the matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the earlier decision of "Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh" where it was held that the party effected must know the award, actually or constructively, the period of six months will run from said knowledge. It was further held that the knowledge must relate to the 'essential contents' of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. In the facts of the case it was held that the application dated 24.12.1954 for interim compensation would not show knowledge of the essential contents of the award. The knowledge of essential contents of the award was deemed from the date of payment and as such the matter was found to be within limitation. The testimony of the petitioner had gone un rebutted that she did not know the amount of compensation and that the land was acquired. The evidence with LAC No. 182A/08 Page 19 of 27 regard to limitation was as under: "The application marked as Ex.D1 was given by me but the amount of compensation was not known to me, nor did I know about acquisition of the land.
Chaudhary Mohd. Sadiq my Karinda had told me on the day I filed the said application that the land had been acquired by the Government."
The case of Qaiser Jehan Begum further developed the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Chandra and stated that a party must have actual or constructive knowledge of 'essential contents' of an Award before objection of limitation can be raised against him.
In the case of Qaiser Jehan Begum, the application for interim compensation did not come in her way because the unrebutted evidence of petitioner was that she did not know the amount of compensation and the fact that land was acquired till the day she filed her reference under Section 18 of the Act.
However, in present case, the petitioners did not enter the witness box to depose that they had no knowledge of essential contents of award prior to six months of her filing reference under Section 18 of the Act. Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Without evidence of petitioner this issue cannot be answered their. From the Ex. P1, filed by the petitioners themselves, it is proved that the petitioners knew the date and number of Award, number of Khasra acquired and area of land in acquisition, atleast when they receive LAC No. 182A/08 Page 20 of 27 notice of the reference u/s 3031 as these details are mentioned in the memorandum sent by the LAC while referring the case to civil court. The petitioners also had actual or at least constructive knowledge of the market value fixed by the Collector as back in the year 1958 when reference was sent by LAC and notice was received by the petitioner of the reference they begin contesting reference under Section 3031 of the Act.
16.17 The third case relied upon by petitioner is of Bharat Chand Dilwali.
Award in this case was made on 16.02.1962. Neither the petitioner was present when the award was announced nor the notice under section 12 (2) of the act were served upon the petitioner. Thereafter the collector made reference under section 30 of the act. That reference was decided only on 08.07.1974 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he became aware of the award only on 14.07.1976 and made application under section 18 of the act on 04.11.1976. The collector made the reference to the court but the reference was dismissed being barred by limitation. The petitioner had filed a claim in respect of the land before the collector that though the petitioner was not the recorded owner of the land but had purchased the same from the father of respondent no. 2 and 3. The Addl. D.J. noted that the petitioner appeared in the proceedings under section 30 of the act through his counsel and therefore was aware of the making of the award. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon the case of "Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh"(Supra),Gian Chand V. UOI AIR 1976 Delhi 83,Rasulkhanji V. H.P. Rathod (1975)Gujarat L.R. 911) where it was held that LAC No. 182A/08 Page 21 of 27 unless the applicant knew all the grounds on which award had been made, his right of making reference would be meaningless. Reliance was also placed on the case of the Ramahari V. Land Acq. Officer(AIR 1969 Orissa 198) wherein the court had noted that knowledge of award does not mean a mere knowledge of fact that the award had been made , it must relate to the essential contents of the award. The Hon'ble Court noted that notice under section 12(2) of the act is not a mere formality. The petitioner must have notice as to the grounds on which award has been based for him to take objections to the same and to seek reference under section 18 of the Act. Though the petitioner participated in the proceedings under section 30 of the act but he was not aware of the contents of the award which fact was not in issue in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act. The Hon'ble Court noted the cases of Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymahshu Int.(AIR 1979 SC 1144), Kumar Veda Kantha Vs. state (AIR 1982 SC 307) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the public authorities to take technical pleas to defeat the legitimate claims of the citizens. 16.18 The facts of this case are different in as much as in that case. In the said case petitioners were not represented through counsel. Further it was not disputed in the said case that petitioners had no knowledge of the contents of the award. Whereas in the present case, it is on record that the petitioners had contested the reference through their counsel. Further petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that they have no knowledge of the contents of award. As stated above onus was on the petitioner to prove that they had filed reference LAC No. 182A/08 Page 22 of 27 within six months from the date of knowledge, but petitioner did not examined any witness to discharge the burden.
16.19 On the other hand the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of Bale Ram. In this case the award was passed on 19.06.1992. The reference under section 18 of the Act was filed on 31.05.2002. The collector refused to refer the case as being time barred and the matter came before the Hon'ble Court as the impugned order was challenged in writ petition. The petitioner was not present when the award was announced and was not served with notice under section 12(2) of the Act. But the petitioner applied for the compensation on 25.03.2001 which was paid to him on 15.04.2002 after the completion of formalities. In the application dated 25.03.2001 the petitioner had mentioned the date and number of the award, the extent of land acquired and that he has been awarded compensation. Therefore it was held that the petitioners had knowledge of essential contents of the award on the day he filed application for the payment of compensation to him. Therefore the Hon'ble court held that the collector rightly refused to refer the matter to court being time barred.
16.20 In the case Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam & Ors (Supra) relied upon by respondent's counsel, the fact of the case are that some of the land owners formed an association SUTNI Sangam for protecting the legal rights of the agriculturalists & filed a writ petition in High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking directions, directing the respondent to refer the cases of person (land LAC No. 182A/08 Page 23 of 27 owners) to a civil court for grant of enhance compensation. High Court allowed the writ petition. Against this order Steel Authority came into Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that High Court committed a serious error in entering the writ petition as association is not a person interested with in the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act. And further section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 being not applicable, the High Court could not have issued any writ after expiry of the period of limitation or as specified in subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act. Hon'ble Justice Sh. S.B. Sinha while dealing above said question raised by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has observed in para 39 that "when the statute provides for a law of limitation compliance thereof is mandatory for the purpose of applying the statute of limitation the court should however, be liberal in their approach."
Further in para 40 it is held that:
"Section 18(2) proviso (b) of the Act provide for maximum period of six months from the date of Collector's Award. It has therefore, impermissible to direct reference be made after a long period particularly when the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 cannot be said to have any application."
16.21 Hon'ble Judges further relied upon judgment Offer an special duty Land Acquisition & another Vs. Shah Munila Chandul & others 1996(9) SCC 414, in which court held "It is the duty of the court to see that the statutory condition laid LAC No. 182A/08 Page 24 of 27 down in section 18 including the one relating to limitation have been complied with and application is not time barred. It not debarred from & testifying itself that the reference which is called upon to hear is valid reference. It has to proceed to determine compensation and if it is time barred. It is not called upon to hear the same. It is only a valid reference which gives jurisdiction to the court."
Hon'ble Judges further held in para 55 that "The state issue notification directing the collector to exercise its jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act. Such a notification, therefore, would amount to a constructional knowledge. It was obligatory on the part of the land owner to file an appropriate application with in the prescribed period."
16.22 Thus the ratio of judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents are same that i.e. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date of actual or constructional knowledge of the content is of award.
16.23 While reverting back to the present case the conclusion drawn from the evidence on record, arguments addressed by the counsels for parties and case law relied upon by them is that petitioners have failed to prove that they were not present when award was announced or they have no knowledge of the passing of award and its contents. Even otherwise it is proved from the document Ex. P1 filed by the petitioner themselves that in the 80s & when the LAC No. 182A/08 Page 25 of 27 petitioners received notice of the LAC reference no. 90/03 and filed claim they were aware of number of Award, Khasra number and area of land acquired. Therefore, I held that the petitioners had knowledge of essential contents of the Award prior to six months of filing the reference petition. Therefore, present reference which was filed on 29.10.01 is clearly barred by limitation.
16.24 As far as market value is concerned the petitioner counsel has filed copy of order and judgement passed by the Ld. ADM Sh. S.M. Aggarwal titled as Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Union Of India, LAC No. 247/88 dated 06.07.1993. This judgement is with regard to same village. The notification under section 4 of the Act is also the same. The award is also the same. The purpose of acquisition is also the same. The counsel for the respondent has also not shown any reason to take a different view than taken by Ld. ADJ. The fair market value of the entire acquired land as on 26.03.1986 was fixed by Ld. ADJ at Rs. 16,750/per bigha. Besides this petitioner was held entitle to 9% from the date of dispossession for the year 15% thereafter till the date of payment. 12% Addl. Amount and 30% solatium and 6% on market value w.e.f. 30.10.66 u/s 4(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner would have been entitle to the same benefit in case their reference had been filed within period of limitation. However, since reference filed by the petitioners is hopelessly time barred therefore, I held that petitioners are not entitle to any enhancement in compensation.
Issue no. 2 decided accordingly LAC No. 182A/08 Page 26 of 27
17. RELIEF 17.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.2, I held that petitioners are not entitle to any enhancement in compensation.
17.2 Reference is answered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SANJEEV KUMAR)
today on 02.07.2010 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE;
DELHI
LAC No. 182A/08 Page 27 of 27