Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 11, 12 & 18 (2) - Reference - Proper Application - appellants had accepted the compensation under protest on the point of sufficiency of the compensation and made a specific request for reference under S. 18 on 24-7-1999, which indisputably was within the six month period of limitation - this is a case where the request under Section 18 of the Act made on 24-7-1999 should be treated as a proper application.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[KURIAN JOSEPH] AND [MOHAN M.
SHANTANAGOUDAR] JJ.
JANUARY 30, 2018
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1349/2018
(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO. 20203 OF
2012)
SHAHID JAMAL & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The High Court, as per the impugned
order, declined to grant an order in favour of the appellants for reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for enhancement
of compensation, on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period
of six months.
3. To refer to the undisputed facts,
though the Award was passed on 31.03.1999, the compensation was paid only on
07.04.1999. There is no dispute that the same was received under protest.
According to the appellants, the copy of the Award was not supplied and,
therefore, the appellants could not furnish the details of the objections with
regard to the Award in the application for reference.
4. Be that as it may, it is not in
dispute that the appellants had filed an application for reference on 24.07.1999.
To the extent relevant, the request reads as follows:-
“Kindly refer our case in the joint
name of Shahid Jamal & Durwesh to reference court u/s. 18. Also please
refer the case Shahid Jamal & M.A. Trading Co. and another in the name of
Durwesh Najaf & MAT FAB International to reference court u/s. 18 and
deposit the award amount u/s 31 sub section (2) part V.”
5. It seems that there was a
communication dated 25.09.1999 from the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellants.
The letter reads as follows:-
“Please accept the reference of your letter
dated 07.06.1999, 24.07.1999 and 25.08.1999, under which it has been mentioned that
for the construction of the project of Ahmadpur Phulwaria Phase-1 of Bhadohi Industrial
Development Authority the information of the declared Award regarding the
acquired land from the village Lakhanpur alias Abhayanpur has not been made
available. Regarding this you have been informed
that notice under section 12(2) was sent on 31.03.1999 regarding declaring the
Award, on which you refused to sign. You demanded the copy of the Award at the
time of receiving the amount of compensation on 07.04.1999 and even the photo
copy of the Award was made available to you, but on the receiving register you
did not sign, rather by making unnecessary correspondence the certified copy of
the Award is being demanded. From your said act it seems that you are trying to
take advantage of the time limit (time barred) by hook or by crook after
enclosing with your application the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Courts,
which is improper. Even then according to your desire the so-called photo copy
of the Award is sent after enclosing.”
6. It may be specifically noted that
the said letter dated 25.09.1999 is, in any case, within six months’ period, as
required under Section 18(2) of the Act (as amended in the State of U.P.).
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State points out that a
proper application stating the grounds for reference has been made only on 30.12.1999,
which is beyond the prescribed period of six months. It is submitted that under
Section 18(2), the application for reference should contain the grounds for
reference and, therefore, only an application with the grounds can be taken as
a proper application for reference.
8. In the impugned judgment the High
Court has taken note of the fact that the appellants had come to know about the
Award on 07.04.1999 when the compensation was received and hence, the
application dated 30.12.1999 under Section 18 of the Act was beyond time and
thus the writ petition was dismissed.
9. Having regard to the factual matrix
we have referred to above, and having heard the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the State,
we find that the High Court has unfortunately missed a crucial point on facts.
As can be seen from the extracted portion of the application dated 24.07.1999
there is a specific request for reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is
not in dispute and it is borne out from the records also as seen by the High
Court the compensation was received only under protest with regard to the
sufficiency of the compensation. It is also seen from the communication from
the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellants dated 25.09.1999, on which date
the time under Section 18 had not expired, that certified copy of the Award had
not been furnished to the appellants. However, a photocopy of the Award was
given, which the appellants were not inclined to acknowledge.
10. Having regard to the fact that the
appellants had accepted the compensation under protest on the point of
sufficiency of the compensation and having made a specific request for
reference under Section 18 on 24.07.1999, which indisputably is within six
months, we are of the view that this is a case where the request under Section
18 of the Act made on 24.07.1999 should be treated as a proper application. It
may also have to be seen that before rejection the grounds had also been
furnished after receipt of the certified copy of the Award. Ordered accordingly.
11. However, having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that we
should also invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India and pass certain further orders for doing complete justice between the parties
regarding the interest from 07.04.1999, the date when the appellants received
the compensation, till the filing of this special leave petition on 29.06.2012
in the interest of any enhancement. Accordingly, for the said period, in the
event of any enhancement, the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest.
12. The appeal is disposed of, as
above.
13. Needless to say that this order is
confined only to the statutory benefit of interest and all other benefits,
which the appellants are free to claim when the reference under Section 18 of
the Act is considered on merits. We also direct the Land Acquisition Collector
to make a reference within four weeks from today and the Reference Court shall dispose
of the same within three months thereafter. The parties are free to take all
available contentions before the Reference Court.
14. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
15. There shall be no orders as to
costs.
Comments
Post a Comment