Shriram Ramchandra Karemore vs The Sub. Div. Offi. And 2 Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 566 Bom

                                    1
                                                                 fa903.07.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                          
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                  
                        First Appeal No.903 of 2007




                                                 
      Shriram s/o Ramchandra Karemore,
      Aged about 60 years,
      Occupation - Nil,
      R/o Rajgopalachari Ward,
      Bhandara,




                                       
      Tah. & Distt. Bhandara                          ... Appellant/
                              ig                      Ori. Petitioner

           Versus
                            
      1. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
         Land Acquisition Officer,
         Bhandara,
         Tah. Distt. Bhandara.
      


      2. The Collector, Bhandara,
   



         Tah. Distt. Bhandara.

      3. The Secretary, 
         Revenue Deptt.,





         Mantralaya, Bombay                           ... Respondents/
                                                      Ori. Respondents


      Shri N.G. Solao, Advocate for Appellant.





      Ms   A.R.   Kulkarni,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for 
      Respondents.


                   Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Dated : 23rd November, 2015

fa903.07.odt

Oral Judgment :

1. This Court had passed an order on 20-11-2015 fixing

the matter today for final hearing at serial no.1, at the instance

of the learned counsel for the appellant. The parties are heard

finally.

2.

The Reference Court has rejected the reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on one of the

grounds that it was barred by limitation. The provision of

Section 18 of the said Act dealing with the reference to the Court

also deals with the question of limitation. Hence, the said

provision is reproduced below :

"18. Reference to Court.--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the

Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

fa903.07.odt

(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."

In terms of proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the

said Act, if the person making the reference was present or was

not represented before the Collector at the time when award was

made, reference is required to be filed within a period of six

weeks from the date of the Collector's award. In other cases, the

reference has to be filed within a period of 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.

3. In order to claim the benefit under proviso (b) to

fa903.07.odt

sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, the claimant has to

make an averment in the application for reference under

Section 18 that he was not present or was not represented before

the Collector in terms of proviso (a) below sub-section (2) of

Section 18 of the said Act when the Collector made his award,

and to lead evidence to establish it. If this fact is established,

then only the question of considering the claim of the claimant

under proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act

shall arise.

4. In the present case, undisputedly, the award was passed

on 6-4-1996. There is no averment in the application for

reference under Section 18 of the said Act that the appellant was

not present or was not represented before the Collector at the

time when the award was made. The appellant was, therefore,

bound to establish that the reference was preferred within a

period of six weeks from the date of the award, i.e. from

6-4-1996. The period of six weeks expired on 21-5-1996, and

the reference was preferred on 29-9-1997. In such a situation,

fa903.07.odt

even if it is established that the appellant received the notice

under Section 12(2) of the said Act on 19-4-1997, he would not

be entitled to the benefit under proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of

Section 18 of the said Act. No fault can be found with the view

taken by the Reference Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon

the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First

Appeal No.491 of 2014 (Civil Revision Application No.9 of 2015)

(Subhashchandra s/o Damaji Panchabudhey and others v.

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and

others), rendered on 16-2-2015. In the said decision, it was not

the question raised or involved as to whether the claimant is

entitled to the benefit of proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of

Section 18 of the said Act, in the absence of pleading and proof

that the appellant was not present or was not represented before

the Collector at the time when the award was made, as

contemplated in proviso (a) below sub-section (2) of Section 18

of the said Act. The said decision is, therefore, not applicable to

fa903.07.odt

the facts of this case.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

                              ig          JUDGE.

       Lanjewar