Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer Jalna ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 December, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5754 OF 2016
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NOS.5755/2016 WITH WP/5756/2016 WITH
WP/5757/2016 WITH WP/5758/2016 WITH WP/5759/2016 WITH
WP/5760/2016 WITH WP/5761/2016 WITH WP/5762/2016 WITH
WP/5763/2016 WITH WP/5764/2016 WITH WP/5765/2016 WITH
WP/5766/2016 WITH WP/5767/2016 WITH WP/5768/2016 WITH
WP/5769/2016 WITH WP/5770/2016 WITH WP/5771/2016 WITH
WP/5772/2016 WITH WP/5773/2016 WITH WP/5774/2016 WITH
WP/5775/2016 WITH WP/5776/2016 WITH WP/5777/2016 WITH
WP/5778/2016 WITH WP/5779/2016 WITH WP/5780/2016 WITH
WP/5781/2016 WITH WP/5782/2016 WITH WP/5783/2016 WITH
WP/5784/2016 WITH WP/5785/2016
The Executive Engineer,
Jalna Minor Irrigation Division,
Jalna, District Jalna.
Under GMIDC, Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER in all petitions.
-versus-
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Collector,
Jalna, District Jalna.
3 The Deputy Collector
and Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Krushna Khore, Jalna,
District Jalna.
...(Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all petitions.)
4 Shivaji s/o Sitaram Rathod,
Age : 56 years,
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:41:36 :::
*2* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5754/2016)
4 Mastan s/o Shaha Ismail,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5755/2016)
4 Piraji s/o Motiram Rathod,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5756/2016)
4 Sampat s/o Yashwantrao Ambhore,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5757/2016)
4 Prakash s/o Khema Rathod,
Age : 58 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5758/2016)
4 Vitthal s/o Kishanrao Borade,
Age : 53 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5759/2016)
4 Limba Pandu (died) through L.Rs.
Asaram Limbaji Sable,
Age : 40 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5760/2016)
4 Sanjay s/o Sarjerao Kadam,
Age : 52 years,
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:41:36 :::
*3* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5761/2016)
4 Manohar s/o Hiraman Rathod,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5762/2016)
4 Anna s/o Daulatrao Pawar,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5763/2016)
4 Suryakant s/o Kanchiram Rathod,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5764/2016)
4 Parmeshwar s/o Ganpatrao Ghare,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5765/2016)
4 Sopan s/o Bhimrao Dhavalkar,
Age : 58 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5766/2016)
4 Ramprasad s/o Babasaheb Ambhore,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5767/2016)
4 Someshwar s/o Babasaheb Ambhore,
Age : 48 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:41:36 :::
*4* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5768/2016)
4 Radhakrushna s/o Narayan Kshirsagar,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5769/2016)
4 Govardhan s/o Janardhan Ambhore,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5770/2016)
4 Parasram s/o Tiku Rathod,
Age : 59 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5771/2016)
4 Digambar s/o Rupla Rathod,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5772/2016)
4 Sandipan s/o Dattatraya Ghare,
Age : 51 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5773/2016)
4 Madhukar s/o Pralhad Veer,
Age : 56 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5774/2016)
4 Gendabai Hemraj Chavan,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:41:36 :::
*5* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5775/2016)
4 Santosh Janardhan Ambhore,
Age : 46 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5776/2016)
4 Pratap s/o Sharad Borade,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5777/2016)
4 Macchindra s/o Vitthal Rathod,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5778/2016)
4 Kailas s/o Tukaram Zore,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5779/2016)
4 Sk. Nasir s/o Sk.Abdul Razzaq,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5780/2016)
4 Gajanan s/o Panditrao Jadhav,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5781/2016)
4 Bhagwan s/o Bhimrao Bhise,
Age : 57 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5782/2016)
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:41:36 :::
*6* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
4 Deou Megha Chavan,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5783/2016)
4 Vithoba Bapurao (died) L.Rs.
Sampati Vithoba,
Age : 38 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5784/2016)
4 Indubai w/o Babasaheb Ambhore,
Age : 48 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shrishti, Taluka Partur,
District Jalna. ...(Respondent No.4 in WP/5785/2016)
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri B.R.Surwase, Advocate for the Petitioner/ Acquiring Body.
Smt.D.S.Jape-Ansingkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri A.B.Kale and Shri R.K.Shingnapure, Advocates for Respondent Nos.4.
Shri Brijesh P. Patil, Sub Divisional Officer, Partur, District Jalna present in
person.
Shri Keshav Natke, Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna present in person.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Reserved on 15th December, 2017.
Pronounced on 18th December, 2017.
JUDGMENT:
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
*7* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner in all these petitions is the same Acquiring
Body, which has acquired various portions of lands individually owned
and possessed by the respective original Claimants/ Respondent No.4 in
all these matters, for the construction of the Kasura Large Minor Irrigation
Project at village Shrishti, Taluka Partur, District Jalna.
3 Since an identical issue is involved and since all the litigating
sides are identical, notwithstanding the distinct and different portions of
the lands owned by the original Claimants, all these petitions are heard
together by the consent of the parties.
4 The identical prayers at clauses 16-B and 16-C put forth by
the Petitioner Acquiring Body read as under:-
"B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
certiorari or order or direction like the nature that
the award under Section 28-A passed by the Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition Krushna Khore, Jalna in
File No.CR/84/98/28-A dated 30.06.2013 in favour
of the respondents/ claimants of Rs.57,05,484/- be
quashed and set aside.
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ
petition, the award passed by Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition Krushna Khore, Jalna in File
No.CR/84/98/ 28-A dated 30.06.2013 in favour of
the respondents/ claimants of Rs.57,05,484/- be
stayed."
5 Under the orders of this Court dated 02.11.2017, the original
*8* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
records from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer were directed to be
produced.
6 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates for the litigating sides. The Petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments :-
(a) Anjebhau s/o Anna and others vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, 1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1414.
(b) State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Marri Venkaiah and
others, 2003 (4) ALL MR 347 (SC).
(c) Popat Bahiru Goverdhane and others vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and another, (2013) 10 SCC 765.
(d) Parasmal s/o Kunjilal Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another, 2015 (7) ALL MR 320.
7 The learned counsel for the original Claimants has relied
upon the following judgments :-
(a) Babaji alias Baban Keru Phapale vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 101.
(b) Dasu Manikrao Shingate vs. State of Maharashtra and another,
2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 942.
*9* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
8 Notwithstanding the fact that the learned Advocates for the
respective sides have strenuously canvassed their submissions on
14.12.2017 and 15.12.2017, the issue raised in these petitions for my
determination, turns on the aspect of limitation which is an inbuilt
provision under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that
regard, the admitted dates and sequence of events would be decisive and
for which purpose, I do not have to reproduce the lengthy submissions of
the learned Advocates in this judgment.
9 Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as
under:-
"28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the
basis of the award of the Court:-
(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to
the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of
the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11,
the persons interested in all the other land covered by
the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1)
and who are also aggrieved by the award of the
Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made
an application to the Collector under section 18, by
written application to the Collector within three months
from the date of the award of the Court require that the
amount of compensation payable to them may be re-
determined on the basis of the amount of compensation
awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three
months within which an application to the Collector
shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which
the award was pronounced and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under
*10* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to
all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, and make an award
determining the amount of compensation payable to the
applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-
section (2) may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector for
the determination of the Court and the provisions of
sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such
reference as they apply to a reference under section 18."
10 The following dates and events are germane to the cause of
action :-
(a) The judgment dated 14.10.2011 was delivered by the learned
Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalna in the LAR
No.113/2010 (old No.175/2005) of two claimants whose
various portions of lands were acquired from the same area,
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(b) Only one out of the 42 claimants moved an application on
15.11.2011 for seeking the certified copy of the judgment
dated 14.10.2011.
(c) He received the certified copy, admittedly, on 05.12.2011.
(d) Nine out of the 42 claimants, inclusive of the claimant who
made the application for certified copy, filed their applications
under Section 28-A on 13.01.2012 before the Collector, Jalna
*11* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
for re-determination of the compensation.
(e) There is no dispute that these nine claimants had moved their
applications on 13.01.2012 and within the limitation of 03
months from 15.10.2011 till 14.01.2012.
(f) Since 20 days were consumed for receiving the certified copy,
the limitation period from 15.10.2011 till 13.01.2012, minus
the 20 days period, rendered these nine applications within
limitation as they were filed on the 65th day.
(g) The 32 claimants in these writ petitions are said to have filed
their individual applications on 31.01.2012 which were not
accompanied by either the certified copy of the judgment
dated 14.10.2011 or by a photostat copy of the said
judgment.
(h) It is conceded that none of these 32 claimants moved an
application for seeking certified copy of the judgment dated
14.10.2011, under the proviso to Section 28-A.
11 I have myself perused the record and proceedings in these
matters in the open court. Though the Petitioner/ Acquiring Body now
states that it is presuming that the applications filed by these 32 claimants
are dated 31.01.2012, I find that the following factors cannot be ignored
by the Court and I cannot turn a blind eye to certain aspects which are as
*12* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
under :-
(a) On all these 32 applications, there is a stamp affixed which is
normally used by the Inward Section of the Land Acquisition
Office.
(b) None of the inward stamps on these 32 applications bear the
date of receipt or the signature of the clerk from the Inward
Section or the Inward Number. As such, it is quite suspicious
as to whether, these applications were actually filed on
31.01.2012 or they may have been filed even thereafter
because one register placed before me indicates a remark of
May, 2012 by the Land Acquisition Office, raising suspicion
about the date of filing.
(c) The Sub Divisional Officer, Partur and the Sub Divisional
Officer, Jalna, who were present in the Court on 15.12.2017,
have instructed the learned AGP to make a statement before
me that the inward register from 21.08.2011 is missing and
the register in which the filing of the 32 applications should
have been recorded as entries in the said register, is not
traceable.
(d) The Written Statements by the Petitioner/ Acquiring Body
were filed in these 32 matters on 08.02.2013 which indicate
that the notices may have been issued after May, 2012
*13* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
considering the remark recorded as above.
(e) Several documents have been cited before me wherein, the
competent authority of the Aurangabad Irrigation Circle had
raised queries as to when were these 32 applications filed and
whether, they were filed within limitation.
(f) One communication dated 04.04.2014 by the Godavari
Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation addressed
to the Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Circle,
mentions that only 10 applications were received on
13.01.2012, 22 applications were received on 31.01.2012 and
rest of the nine applications do not indicate any date of filing.
(g) Ten applicants, who had filed their applications within
limitation, were paid their entire re-determined
compensation.
12 I find it quite conspicuous as to how could the Inward
Registers go missing or whether, such Inward Registers have been held
back from the Court. I would be failing in my duty if I do not direct the
District Collector, Jalna to initiate an enquiry into this aspect since this is
not a minor issue keeping in mind that if there is any suspicious act or
conduct on the part of any person in charge of receiving the applications,
it would lead to payment of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A
*14* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
to some of the claimants, who are parties to such a mischief.
13 While dealing with the acts, which amount to deviation from
the rule of law, in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others,
(2017) 8 SCC 670, the Honourable Supreme Court has concluded in
paragraph 68 as under:-
"68. ........ The fault lines of our system, be it in education,
health or law, are that its lethargy and indolence furnish
incentives for the few who choose to break the rules to
gain an unfair advantage. In such a situation, the court
as a vital institution of democratic governance must be
firm in sending out a principled message that there is no
incentive other than for behaviour compliant with rules
and deviance will meet severe reprimands of the law."
I am, therefore, ordering the District Collector, Jalna to
institute an enquiry into this matter so as to unearth the fraud, if any and
initiate appropriate disciplinary action against such employees of the State
or the limb of the State, if they have participated in the said fraud.
14 Notwithstanding the above, since the Petitioner has
proceeded on the premise that the Applicants before this Court had filed
their applications on 31.01.2012, I am considering the said date for the
purposes of deciding these petitions keeping in view that the Applicants
also contend that the applications were filed on 31.01.2012 under Section
28-A.
*15* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
15 I have considered the judgments cited by the litigating sides.
In Babaji (supra), this Court has concluded that the limitation prescribed
under Section 28-A is of three months and not 90 days. In the instant case,
as the judgment was delivered under Section 18 on 14.10.2011, the three
months would be reckoned from 15.10.2011. It is further held that the
period spent in applying and obtaining the copy of the award has to be
excluded from the limitation period. The nine applications (or ten
applications as per the letter dated 21.04.2014 referred to above), were
filed on the 70th day, which is not an issue before me.
16 Insofar as the present 32 applicants are concerned, if the
period of obtaining certified copy of 20 days is excluded, their applications
will be deemed to have been filed on the 88th day. This calculation is
permissible if they had applied for the certified copy as like the earlier
applicants, who had applied on 15.11.2011 and had received the certified
copy on 05.12.2011. These 20 days, therefore, could be excluded.
17 However, none of these 32 applicants claim to have applied
for the certified copy. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court
in Dasu Manikrao Shingate (supra) wherein, this Court has concluded in
paragraph 7 as under:-
"7. ........ But, merely because the petitioner has not
annexed a copy of the court award along with the
application under Section 28-A, that by itself cannot be
a justification for rejection of his application. Besides, if
*16* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
such an award is filed required for perusal by the court
or necessary for enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section
28, then certainly the Collector could call upon the
applicants to produce the copy thereof. ....... The
provisions of law contained in Section 28-A no where
makes it compulsory for the applicants to file any such
copy of court award along with the application itself."
18 If the above ratio is to be made applicable to this case as per
the contention of the Applicants, then they cannot seek the advantage of
the period consumed by one successful applicant (none amongst these 32)
who had himself applied for the award on 15.11.2011 and had received
the copy on 05.12.2011. If these applicants desire to seek advantage of the
exclusion of the periods spent for acquiring the certified copy, under the
proviso to Section 28-A, then they have to specifically demonstrate
whether, they had applied for certified copy and if yes, when did they
receive the certified copy. It is an admitted position in these petitions that
none of these 32 applicants had moved any application for obtaining the
certified copy. If this be so, then the limitation period for these 32
applicants would commence from 15.10.2011 and the three months
period would expire on 14.01.2012. As it is admitted by the applicants
that they have applied under Section 28-A on 31.01.2012, their
applications were clearly barred by limitation.
19 The Honourable Apex Court, in the matter of the State of
Andhra Pradesh (supra), has laid down the law that re-determination of
*17* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
the value of land for compensation under Section 28-A would start from
the date of passing of the award and not from the date of knowledge of
passing of the award. It requires no debate that the proviso to Section 28-
A reproduced above, enables the exclusion of the days consumed from the
date of filing of the application for certified copy till obtaining a copy
thereof.
20 The conclusions of the Honourable Apex Court in paragraphs
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 read as under:-
"7. Plain language of the aforesaid Section would only
mean that the period of limitation is three months from
the date of the Award of the Court. It is also provided
that in computing the period of three months the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time requisite
for obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded.
Therefore, the aforesaid provision crystallizes that
application under Section 28-A is to be filed within three
month from the date of the award by the Court by only
excluding the time requisite for obtaining copy. Hence, it
is difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the
ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant.
8. Further, the judgment rendered by the High Court is
contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in Tota
Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors [1997] 6 SCC 280,
wherein this Court held that limitation begins to run
from the date of the award and as per the proviso the
time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award
and the decree is to be excluded in computing the period
of three months. The Court held that in view of the
express language the question of knowledge does not
arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that
limitation of three months begins to start from the date
of the knowledge is clearly unsustainable and cannot be
accepted. Same view is expressed by this Court in Union
of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors [1997] 6
*18* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
SCC 59 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and
Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr., [1996] 6
SCC 746.
9. However, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision and
that applicants being non parties to the reference
proceedings initiated by some other land owners, they
would not have any knowledge of the date of the award
or its contents, therefore the interpretation given by the
High Court to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act
does not call for any interference, and in any case, the
question involved be referred to a larger bench.
10. In our view, with regard to first contention that Section
28-A is a beneficial provision, there cannot be any
dispute. However, the advantage of the benefit, which is
conferred, is required to be taken within the stipulated
time. A land owner may be poor or illiterate and
because of that he might not have filed reference
application but that would not mean that he could be
negligent in not finding out whether other landowners
have filed such applications. Whosoever wants to take
advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant
and has to take appropriate action within prescribed
time. He must at least be vigilant in making efforts to
find out whether other landowner has filed any
reference application and if so what is the result. If that
is not done then law cannot help him. Admittedly, in the
present case, award enhancing the compensation was
pronounced by the civil court by order dated 29th
November 1984 and applications were filed on 27th
November, 1989 i.e. after lapse of 5 years. In such case,
as the applicant was having an opportunity of knowing
the award and/or he was required to make efforts of
knowing about such proceedings, he must be presumed
to have had knowledge of the award. If the contention of
the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it
will create total vagueness and uncertainty as
landowners can claim that they have come to know of
the award after long lapse of time and, therefore, the
application even though beyond time may be
entertained. If such applications are entertained, there
may not be any finality to the award and payment of
*19* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
compensation. Result may be that such proceedings may
adversely affect where land is acquired by the
Government for a project, which is to be carried out by
local bodies.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
decision of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh
v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., [1962]
1 SCR 676, which is approved by three Judge Bench in
State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Anr.,
[1964] 1 SCR 971. In that case the Court interpreted
the proviso to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause
(a) of proviso was not applicable in the said case
because person making application was not present or
was not represented before the Collector at the time
when he made his award. The Court also held that
notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) was also
not issued, therefore, that part of clause (b) of the
proviso would not be applicable. The Court, therefore,
referred to second part of proviso which provide that
such application can be made within six months from
the date of the Collector's award. In the context of the
scheme of Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the
award by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of
market price by the State for purchase of the property.
Hence, for the said offer, knowledge actual or
constructive of the party affected by the award was an
essential requirement of fair-play and natural justice.
Therefore, second part of the proviso must mean the
date when either the award was communicated to the
party or was known by him either actually or
constructively.
12. Aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable for
interpretation of Section 28-A because there is no
question of issuing notice to such applicant as he is not
party to the reference proceeding before the Court. The
award passed by the Court cannot be termed as an offer
for market price for purchase of the land. There is no
duty cast upon the Court to issue notice to the
landowners who have not initiated proceedings for
enhancement of compensation by filing reference
applications; may be that their lands are acquired by a
common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
*20* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
As against this, under Section 18 it is the duty of the
Collector to issue notice either under Section 12(2) of
the Act at the time of passing of the award or in any
case the date to be pronounced before passing of the
award and if this is not done then the period prescribed
for filing application under Section 18 is six months
from the date of the Collector's award.
13. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the
judgment rendered by this Court in Tota Ram (supra)
requires re-consideration."
21 The Honourable Apex Court once again dealt with a similar
issue in Popat Bahiru (supra) and held that after the exclusion of the
period for obtaining certified copy of 12 days, the delay was of only two
days, and as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court, but a quasi
judicial authority, the applications filed by the applicants were barred by
limitation.
22 In the matter of Parasmal Kunjilal Jain (supra), the learned
Division Bench of this Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
was not applicable to the proceedings under Section 28-A as the
Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer was not a court. It was thus, concluded
that the delay, if any, even after the exclusion of the period for obtaining
the certified copy, was not condonable.
23 I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition dated 30.06.2013. I find that the concerned
Authority has not dealt with the above issues and has failed to consider
*21* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
the above aspects. The money from the State exchequer, which is the
taxpayers hard earned money, cannot be distributed as a bounty. As such,
the impugned orders in these petitions are perverse, erroneous and
against the tenets of law. The failure on the part of the said officer to
consider the aspect of delay, is against the settled principles of law.
24 In the light of the above, all these Writ Petitions are allowed
in terms of prayer clause (B) reproduced above. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No costs.
25 The District Collector, Jalna, shall submit his investigation
report, as directed in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, to the learned Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court on or before 30.06.2018. The said report shall then
be placed before the Court on or before 31.07.2018.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
