FA 248/04 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL N
O
.
248 /20 04 SICOM Limited, through its Regional Manager, Uddyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. APP ELL ANT .....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Wardha.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Wardha.
3. Nagorao S/o Dashrath Waghe (Since deceased through L.R.) *A) Laxmibai Wd/o Nagorao Barai (*Deleted as per Courts Order dated 25.04.2016) B) Hiraman S/o Nagorao Barai, Aged about 59 Years, Occ: Cultivator.
C) Pandurang S/o Nagorao Barai, Aged about 51 Years, Occ: Cultivator.
D) Chanpat S/o Nagorao Barai, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Cultivator.
E) Ramchandra S/o Nagorao Barai, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Cultivator.
Respondent Nos. (A) to (E) R/o Tah. Seloo, District Wardha.
F) Sitaram S/o Nagorao Barai,
Aged about 42 Years, R/o Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 :::
FA 248/04 2 Judgment
G) Doma S/o Nagorao Barai,
Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Service,
R/o Wardha.
H) Sushila D/o Nagorao Barai,
Aged about 56 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o Sindhi Railway, Tah. Seloo,
District Wardha. RESPONDE
NT
S
Shri Rohit Vaidya H/f Adv. Anand Parchure, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.D. Dubey, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the respondent No.3.
CORAM : S.
B. SHUKRE, J
.
DATE : 30 OCTO BER , 2017 .
TH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is an appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.89/1991 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha.
2. The land of the original claimant, deceased Nagorao- represented in this appeal by his legal heirs, was acquired compulsorily for public purposes. The Collector passed his award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act on 29.03.1988. Not being satisfied with the same, the land owner/original claimant filed an application under Section 18 for making a reference to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha for ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 ::: FA 248/04 3 Judgment granting appropriately enhanced compensation for the acquired land. This application was contested on merits by the State, which was the acquiring body. It appears that this appellant came into picture much later when the acquired land was transferred to it by the State. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the reference application was strongly opposed by the State. One of the objections was that the reference application was barred by limitation. After hearing the contesting parties on merits, the reference court partly allowed the application and granted enhanced compensation to the original claimant. In the process, needless to say, the objection regarding bar of limitation was also rejected by the reference court. The judgment and award in this regard were passed on 21.01.2002. As the present appellant was of the opinion that the reference application filed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act was barred by limitation, on this narrow aspect, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was indeed issued to the original claimant and that it was also received by the original claimant and therefore, the reference application was clearly barred by limitation. According to learned counsel for the legal heirs of the original claimant, even if such notice was issued, it was never received by the original ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 ::: FA 248/04 4 Judgment claimant and there is no evidence to show that the notice was received on a particular date by the original claimant and therefore, as per Section 18(2)(b) of the L.A. Act, the limitation period in the present case would be reckoned from the date of the award passed by the Collector, which was 29.03.1988 and when so reckoned, the reference application filed on 21.06.1988 would have to be said as within limitation.
4. The only point which arisen for consideration is, whether the reference application filed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act was within limitation ?
5. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that even though the award under Section 11 was physically signed by the Collector on 29.03.1988, on that date, the original claimant was not present before the Collector, either personally or through his representative. Therefore, Clause (a) of Section 18(2), which stipulates limitation period of six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, would have no application here. If this is so, we would have to turn to Clause (b) of Section 18(2) of the L.A. Act.
6. Clause (b) of Section 18(2) of the L.A. Act envisages two situations. The first situation is that, a notice issued by the Collector ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 ::: FA 248/04 5 Judgment under Section 12(2) is received by the land owner. In case of the first situation, limitation period of six months has been prescribed and it has to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice. In the second case, the limitation period of six weeks has been stipulated and it starts running from the date of the Collector's award. Having considered the two distinctive limitation periods applicable to two different situations, now it would be necessary for us to examine as to in which of these two situations, the present case falls.
7. On going through the evidence available on record, one can very well see that there is a notice issued under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act by the Collector. This notice is at Exh.47. A perusal of Exh.47 notice does not show that it was accompanied by any copy of award. There is also no evidence brought on record by the appellant or the State establishing that on a particular date, this notice was received by the original claimant. The period of six weeks applicable to the situation where notice under Section 12(2) is issued, as found earlier, has to be reckoned not from the date of issuance of the notice, but from the date of its receipt. So, presence of evidence showing a particular date on which such a notice was received by the claimant or the land owner, is necessary. But, that evidence is conspicuously absent in this case. Upon perusal of the record, I may also say that there is not even a pleading ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 ::: FA 248/04 6 Judgment particularly made by the appellant that there was a particular date on which the notice was received by the original claimant. On being asked about such a pleading, learned counsel for the appellant also could not show to me presence of any such pleading. This would lead me to hold that although notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was issued, it was not received by the original claimant. Such being the position, the first situation prescribing period of six weeks under Section 18(2)(b) has not arisen in the present case. Then, what remains is the second situation of absence of notice under Section 12(2) and period of six months of limitation to be computed from the date of the Collector's award.
8. In the present case, the physical date of the award passed by the Collector is 29.03.1988. There is no dispute about this fact. But, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court, 1624, the date of the award is not to be understood as the date on which the award is physically signed and it is to be comprehended as the date on which the communication of passing of the award to the land owner takes place. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the application for grant of certified copy of the award was filed by the land owner on 16.05.1988. In the absence of any other evidence regarding communication of the passing of award to ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 ::: FA 248/04 7 Judgment the land owner, this date of 16.05.1988, by following the law laid down in the case of Premji Nathu (Supra), would have to be taken as the actual date of the award, because on that date, it could be said that the award was meaningfully passed. So, the period of limitation in the present case, as per the second situation as envisaged under Section 18(2)(b) of the L.A. Act, would have to be reckoned from the date of 16.05.1988. Even if the date of the award is taken to be 29.03.1988, on which date it was physically signed by the Collector, still the reference application filed on 21.06.1988, was within limitation.
9. Having found thus, I do not see any merit in this appeal. The point is answered accordingly. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The appeal stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Legal heirs of the original claimant are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court together with interest, if any.
The first appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE SHRIPAD ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:32:12 :::