Deputy General Manager vs Patel Jivanbhai Ambalal

Gujarat High Court

Deputy General Manager vs Patel Jivanbhai Ambalal on 8 August, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/3200/2010                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3200 of 2010
                                                            With
                                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3203 of 2010

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes            No
                                                                                              No
                      ==========================================================
                                                 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
                                                           Versus
                                               PATEL JIVANBHAI AMBALAL & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS AISHWARYA REDDY FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the
                      Appellant(s) No. 1
                      RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,
                      MS ROSHANI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No.2
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                          Date : 08/08/2025

                                                   COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present both the appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 153 of 2002 and 196 of 2002 Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined whereby the References were partly allowed and the present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.

3. The short facts giving rise to present appeals are that the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands situated at village Shertha, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, belonging to the respondents-original claimants. After following due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award under Section 11 of the Act on 23.3.1988 and fixed the rate of rent of Rs.0.82/- per Sq. Mtr.

3.1. However, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute, by way of references being Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 153 of 2002 and 196 of 2002. The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Cases by way of the impugned judgment and award and awarded additional amount of rental compensation @ Rs. 5.50 per sq. mtr.. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

4. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Reddy, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.2.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined

5. Ms. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, unjust and against the settled principle of law. She has submitted that the jurisdiction of Reference Court under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act is limited to determining questions of sufficiently of compensation and that too only in case of a difference between the Collector and persons interested that arose at the relevant point of time. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the reference court has no power to consider the compensation beyond the period of three years. She has submitted that the reference court has committed serious error while allowing all the reference cases. She has submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing reference cases. She has submitted that the original award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.3.1988 whereas the reference cases was filed after more than 12 years i.e. on 15.12.2000 and therefore it was time barred and the said cases are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. With regard to limitation, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 2 GLR 1226. She has submitted that even the reference court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined beyond the period of three years, when the acquisition is of temporary usage of the land, under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. She has submitted that without considering the facts of the case, the reference court has passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of the opponent original claimants. She has also submitted that even the reference Court has also exceeded jurisdiction while awarding interest beyond a period of three years, because when the Court has no power to award the compensation beyond period of three years, there is no question of awarding interest, as it was awarded by the reference court in the present case.

5.1 Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court dated 15.6.2015 passed in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008, decision dated 20.1.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 887 of 2007 and allied group of appeals, decision dated 12.202024 passed in First Appeal No. 1037 of 2009 and the decision dated 16.6.2005 in First Appeal No. 5634 of 2008 and urges that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set aside.

5.2 Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.2 has supported the arguments of Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined

6. I have gone through the record of the appeals and relevant documents. I have also examined the record and proceedings of the appeals and the material placed on record.

7. It appears that present appeals came to be admitted vide order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court and conditional interim relief was grated by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.3.2011 passed in Civil Application Nos. 12647 of 2010 with Civil Application Nos. 12648 of 2010 to Civil Application No.12650 of 2010.

8. While considering the contention with regard to delay, it is appropriate to refer the observations made by this Court in the case of O.N.G.C. (supra) which reads as under:-

"(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35(3)-

Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963) - Art.137 - Lands acquired in 1980-Applications fro reference made in 2001- Held, reference applications were not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35- Scope of power of reference Court is confined to determine adequacy of compensation / rent - Reference Court gave findings holding that acquisition proceedings were null and void, that possession of acquiring body (O.N.G.C.) was illegal and unauthorized, etc. - Findings and observations, held, were beyond the jurisdiction the reference Court - Observation made that the Judge of the reference Court had "tried to show his own knowledge without proper application of mind to the issue"

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined

25.Even otherwise as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under sec.35 of the Act as back as on 11/8/1980 determining the compensation/rent at the rate of 0.35 paise per sq.mtr. per annum which was never objected to by the original land owners / interested persons, but the same came to be accepted without raising any objection and still the respondents herein - original claimants submitted the applications for making reference to the reference court under sub section (3) of sec.35 i.e. after a period of 21 years raising the dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation which was determined while declaring award on 11/8/1980. It is the contention on behalf of the original claimants that as under sub section (3) of sec.58 of the Act on 11/8/2008, no time limit is prescribed and as it is the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the Reference Court and as the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, the application submitted by the claimants are within the period of limitation and/or not barred by delay and laches. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that when there is no limitation prescribed, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would come in picture and within three years from the date of cause of action, the applications could have been made. It is true that under sub section (3) of sec.35 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. However, that does not mean that the application for reference can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided, three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years, an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings. The reference court has misinterpreted the provisions of Sec.35 of the Act. While considering the submissions with regard to the limitation, the reference court has held that as the entire land acquisition proceedings and the award are null and void, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (reference court has considered sec.137 of the Limitation Act wrongly) would not be applicable, more particularly when the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, making the reference to the reference court as provided under sub section (3) of section 35 of the Act. As stated Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined above, such a findings and the observations of the Reference Court are perverse and illegal. As held by us, there was no dispute with regard to sufficiency of the possession raised by the claimants at the relevant time when the award was declared, therefore, there was no occasion for the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and we have also held that the reference applications are not maintainable. Even otherwise, assuming that it was the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and when the Collector failed to perform his duty, in that case also, the claimants are required to initiate appropriate proceedings within reasonable time, as there is no time limit prescribed under the Act. Certainly the claimants cannot submit the applications and/or raise the dispute after a period of 21 years. Thus, on the ground of delay and laches the reference applications were not maintainable. As such when the applications were submitted after a period of 21 years raising dispute with regard to adequacy of the compensation awarded in the year 1980, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ought not to have referred the dispute to the reference court. As such the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed an error and/or acted arbitrarily in referring the dispute to the reference Court after a period of 21 years."

9. In the above referred observations, Article 137 of the Limitation Act is very well discussed by this Court. Even in the decision of this Court dated 15.6.2015 passed in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008 and yet another decision of this dated 12.8.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 3865 of 2008, the said issue is well discussed.

10. Considering the above referred decisions of this Court vis as vis it is evident from the present record that the reference court, without considering the issue of Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined delay has passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of the opponent original claimants. Even otherwise as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 35 of the Act as back as in the year 1983 determining the compensation, which was never objected by the original land owners-interested persons and the same came to be accepted without raising any objection. The contention on behalf of original claimants that under Subsection (3) of Section 35 of the Act, no time limit is prescribed and as it is a duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and as the collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, the application submitted by the claimants before the District Court are within a period of limitation and not barred by the delay and laches, would come into play when there is no limit prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and within three years from the date of cause of action the application could have been made. The said Section 35(3) reads as under:-

"35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land. Procedure when difference as to compensation exists (1)XXXXXXXXX (2)XXXXXXXXX (3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined

11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the reference Court committed serious error in entertaining reference almost after delay of more than 12 years from the date of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference was not maintenance beyond a period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Even otherwise, looking to the scheme of the Act in absence of any power being conferred upon reference Court, delay cannot be condoned by the reference Court.

12. In view of settled legal position the reference court committed serious error or law and on facts both while determining the reference cases.

13. For the foregoing reasons present appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 153 of 2002 and 196 of 2002 are hereby quashed and set aside.

14. So far as the direction issued with regard to the interest is concerned, as it is not permanent acquisition but it was temporary acquisition and therefore the interest cannot be awarded under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, as if it is a regular acquisition. Therefore, the direction issued qua interest also deserves to be Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3200/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

15. Interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 3.3.2011 passed in Civil Application Nos. 12647 of 2010 with Civil Application Nos. 12648 of 2010 to Civil Application No.12650 of 2010 stands vacated forthwith. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. The amount, if any, lying with the Reference Court shall be returned to the appellant corporation along with accrued interest thereon, after due verification within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order.

Sd/-

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:20:06 IST 2025