Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Baby Chatterjee (Mondal) vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 972 of 2015
Smt. Baby Chatterjee (Mondal)
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 973 of 2015
Smt. Bani Ghosal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 974 of 2015
Smt. Sandhya Chakraborty
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 1186 of 2015
Sri Shyama Prosad Chatterjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 1188 of 2015
Smt. Pratima Mukherjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
2
FMA 1190 of 2015
Smt. Jyotsna Banerjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 1191 of 2015
Smt. Nilima Chatterjee (Ghosh)
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
FMA 1193 of 2015
Smt. Purnima Bhattacharjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 1194 of 2015
Smt. Lekha Chatterjee (Roy)
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
FMA 1195 of 2015
Smt. Reba Chatterjee (Bhattacharjee)
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Debayan Bera
Mr. Sakti Prasad Chakraborti
For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
Heard on : August 3, 2023
Judgment on : August 3, 2023
3
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
Ten appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they
emanate out of the same order passed in ten different writ
petitions.
2. The orders under appeal are all dated September 24, 2014.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge, held that
the application made under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was not within the prescribed time.
Therefore, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to dismiss the
writ petitions.
4. Aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners are before us.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that,
neither a copy of the award was served upon any of the
appellants nor was a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 served upon any of the appellants. He
submits that, the period of limitation prescribed under
Section 18 of the Act of 1894 commences, upon fulfilment of
the criteria specified therein. None of the appellants were
aware of the award or its contents. No notice, as noted
above, under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was served
upon the appellants.
6. Relying upon AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3536 (Vijay
Mahadeorao Kubade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), he
submits that, limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the
Act of 1894 will not commence till the notice of the award is
served upon land owner. He relies upon (2002)1 CAL LT 170
(HC) (Sambhu Nath Kshetry & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal &
Ors.) in support of the contention that acquiring details of
the award does not constitute a notice under Section 12 (2)
of the Act of 1894.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits a
status report on behalf of his client which be taken on
record. He submits that each of the appellants were aware
of the date of the award. He refers to the averments made in
the writ petitions in which, the impugned orders were
passed, in particular to Paragraph 17 thereof. He submits
that a copy of the notice under Section 12(2) was annexed to
the writ petitions. That apart, he refers to a letter issued by
the appellants dated January 1, 2003, where the appellants
claimed that they were aware of the award. Consequently,
he submits that, since each of the appellants were aware of
the award, no interference is called for in respect of the
impugned orders.
8. The appellants as writ petitioners approached the Writ
Court, requiring a reference petition filed by the appellants
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 in respect of specified
Land Acquisition cases, to be made to the appropriate Civil
Judge. Such writ petitions were considered by the learned
Trial Judge and by the impugned order dated September 24,
2014, the learned Judge held that the appellants were served
with a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1894.
Therefore, the learned Judge held that the application under
Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was not within the prescribed
period of time.
9. We required the State to produce materials to establish that
any of the appellants was served with the notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. State submitted a report
which we took on record today. The report does not speak of
any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 being
served individually upon any of the appellants.
10. In the report submitted today, the State relies upon
averment made in paragraph 17 of the writ petitions by the
appellants to the effect that, notices under Section 12(2) of
the Act of 1894 were issued to Himangshu Ghoshal and
Sambhu Nath Ghoshal. Neither Himangshu Ghoshal nor
Sambhu Nath Ghoshal are appellants in any of the ten
appeals under consideration. They did not approach the
Writ Court also. Notices under Section 12(2) of the Act of
1894 served on Himangshu Ghoshal and Sambhu Nath
Ghoshal cannot be construed to mean service of notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 upon the appellants.
Appellants and the Ghoshals are not connected with each
other. State failed to establish service of notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 upon any of the appellants
before us.
11. Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade (supra) found that no notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was served upon the land
owner. In such circumstances, the reference petition under
Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was held to be within time.
12. In Sambhu Nath Kshetry & Ors. (supra), a Single Bench of
this Court held that, Section 18 of the Act of 1894 prescribed
the time-limit for making the application for reference. Such
time-limit commences from the date of making of the award.
13. In the facts of the present case, the appellants filed an
application before the appropriate authority under Section
18 of the Act of 1894 for reference to the Court. The
appellants are aggrieved by the award passed. The
authorities did not make the reference.
14. Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is as follows:
"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.
(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."
15. Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 requires an applicant to state
the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.
Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of the 18 prescribes the limitation
for the purpose of making an application under Section 18 of
the Act of 1894. The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 18
contemplates two scenarios and proceeds to prescribe
different period of limitations in respect of the two scenarios
contemplated. The first scenario is where, the person
making the application under Section 18 was present or
represented before the Collector at the time when the
Collector made the award. In such a scenario, the time-limit
prescribed is six weeks from the date of the award of the
Collector. It is to be noted that, the person making the
application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 must be
present or represented before the Collector when the
Collector was making the award for the time period
prescribed in such scenario, for the period of limitation
prescribed therein to operate.
16. In the second scenario, which is all other scenarios except
the first, the time-limit is six weeks from the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) or within six
months from the date of the award of the Collector whichever
expires first. In the second scenario, the person making the
application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is not
present or represented before the Collector when the
Collector makes the award. In respect of such person, notice
under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1894 is required to be
served. The time period commences from the date of receipt
of such notice. It is for a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 is yet to be served
upon the appellants. The appellants filed an application
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. It cannot be said on the
strength of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 that such an
application is beyond the period prescribed.
18. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders
dated September 24, 2014 passed in the ten several writ
petitions. We direct the appropriate authority to send the
reference petition filed by the appellants under Section 18 of
the Act of 1894 to the appropriate Civil Court for
adjudication within a period of a fortnight from the date of
communication of this judgment and order.
19. FMA 972 of 2015, FMA 973 of 2015, FMA 974 of 2015,
FMA 1186 of 2015, FMA 1188 of 2015, FMA 1190 of
2015, FMA 1191 of 2015, FMA 1193 of 2015, FMA 1194
of 2015, FMA 1195 of 2015 are disposed of accordingly.
(Debangsu Basak,J.)
20. I Agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
(AD)
