The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others Vs The Deputy Collector & Special Land acquisitions officer & others held that if the liberty is reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act 1894 for acquiring the lands. The land acquisition collector awarded the compensation @Rs 69 per Sq m under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the high court and the division bench of the high court dismissed the writ petition and reserved the liberty with the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of the compensation or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled.
The appellant approached this court by way of a special leave petition which was dismissed on the ground of merits and delay. Moreover, considering the liberty, the appellant filed the reference under section 18 of the act, 1894. However, the same was dismissed by the reference court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that when the court dismissed the special leave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to have entertained the same and ought to have considered the reference on merits. It was also submitted that the liberty was reserved by the division judge bench of the high court and thereafter, when appellant filed the reference for the enhancement of the compensation, the same couldn’t have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the time limit to file reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation would be six months from the date of receipt of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 and the period of 6 months for making the reference was expired on 6.10.2011 and the reference court has rightly dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. The learned counsel relied upon the judgement titled Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others, (1996) 9 SCC 414 and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2005) 7 SCC 440.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original landowners whose valuable lands had been acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petition before the High Court (in the earlier round of litigation) they challenged the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observed that it is too late to make any grievance, still the High Court while dismissing the writ petition reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the compensation.
The High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissing the reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.
CASE NAME- Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others Vs The Deputy Collector & Special Land acquisitions officer & others
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9004 OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.19053/2022)
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
DATE- 12.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :