Gujarat High Court

Desingbhai Viriyabhai Rathwa vs The State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/937/2025                            ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

                                                                                                        undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 937 of 2025

                       ==================================================
                                         DESINGBHAI VIRIYABHAI RATHWA
                                                         Versus
                                          THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
                       No. 1,2,3
                       MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                       ==================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
                                  AGARWAL
                                                     and
                                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                       Date : 03/02/2025

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging

the communication dated 24.10.2024 whereby the application under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act), filed by the

petitioner in the month of July, 2024 and October, 2024 in respect of

the land in question has been rejected on the ground of limitation. In

order to assail the reasoning given in the communication dated

24.10.2024 sent to the petitioner rejecting the application under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/937/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

undefined

as the "Act, 1894"), it is sought to be submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the purchaser of the

lands in question by way of two registered sale deeds executed in the

year 2008. The acquisition notifications under the land acquisition

Act, 1894 came to be published in the year 2009-10. The award with

respect to the land in question came to be made on 10.10.2012.

2.1. As there was a dispute pertaining to the ownership of the land

in question and the question as to who was entitled for disbursement

of compensation, on the objections raised by the petitioner about the

name of the original owner being reflected in the award, the matter

was referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 and was

registered as LAR Case No. 460 of 2013. It is stated in the writ

petition that the petitioner had filed an objection on 15.07.2011 by

filing a written objection against reflection of the name of the

original owner throughout acquisition process and requested the

Special Land Acquisition Officer, namely respondent no. 3 not to pass

any award in favour of the original owner without hearing the

petitioner herein. The petitioner had also filed a Regular Civil Suit

No. 13 of 2010 challenging the subsequent sale deed dated

15.12.2009 executed by the original owner, but the same was also

disposed of as withdrawn vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2017.







                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/937/2025                                        ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined

3. The contention is that the registered sale deeds executed in

favour of the petitioner had never been challenged by any person nor

there is any such proceeding pending as on date. With this

contention, it is sought to be submitted that the reference made

under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 had been decided by the

Court concerned vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2024. After

decision on the reference wherein entitlement of the petitioner to the

compensation amount has been determined, the petitioner

immediately rushed to challenge the determination made under the

original award dated 10.10.2012 by filing an application under

Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

3.1. By placing reliance on Section 18 of the Act, 1894, it was

sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for

computation of limitation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, there

are only two contingencies, namely :- (a) The limitation would run

with respect to a person who was present or represented before the

Collector at the time of making of the award, from the date of

Collector's award and six weeks time period is provided for the

purpose of making an application under Section 18 as per Section

18(2) (a). Whereas, in all other cases, six weeks from the date of

receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/937/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

undefined

six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period

expires first, is the limitation under Section 12 (2) (b). It is contended

that in the present case, no notice under Section 12(2) was ever

issued to the petitioner and the notice if any, must have been sent to

the original owner who was litigating with the petitioner and whose

name finds place in the award. In such a situation, the limitation as

prescribed in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act,

1894 cannot run out in the case of the petitioners.

4. As regards sub-section (2) (a) of Section 18, the time period of

six weeks from the date of Collector's award has to be reckoned from

the date of the declaration of the award itself. Since the petitioner

has participated in the proceedings before the Collector while

making an objection in writing on 15.07.2011, it cannot be assumed

that the petitioner was aware of the date of making of the award i.e.

10.10.2012. Thus, in both the situations, limitation cannot run out

insofar as the case of the petitioner is concerned.

5. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Madan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2014 (2) SCC

720, to submit that the respondent no. 2, namely the reference

making authority has committed an error of law in rejecting the

application for making of reference on the premise that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/937/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

undefined

petitioner was aware of the proceedings under the award and there

is a delay of approximately 12 years in making of the application.

6. Testing all these submissions of the learned counsel for

petitioner, suffice it to say that as per own case of the petitioner, the

petitioner was well aware of the proceedings of making of the award

under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 with his objection having been filed

on 15.07.2011. Being aware of the proceedings of making of the

award, it is difficult for us to accept that the petitioner was not aware

of the date of the declaration of the award, i.e. 10.10.2012.

Moreover, as per own case of the petitioner, on his objection a

reference was made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 which

was registered as LAR Case No. 460 of 2013, which the petitioner

was pursuing for about 12 years. However, no steps have been taken

by the petitioner to agitate his claim for re-determination of

compensation amount on the premise that the acquired land has

been under valued in the award dated 10.10.2012.

7. We may note that the provisions of Section 30 and 18 of the

Act, 1894 are independent to each other. While Section 30 of the Act,

1894 would be attracted in a situation when there is a dispute

pertaining to disbursement of compensation, inasmuch as, as to who

is the person interested who would be entitled to receive the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/937/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

undefined

compensation amount determined by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer, under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 the question is about the

determination of compensation amount i.e. the market value of the

land in question. On an application filed by any person interested,

about the determination of market value of the acquired land, the

Collector would be required to make a reference to the Court to

consider his objection as to the measurement of the land, the amount

of compensation and the apportionment thereof among the person

interested. Even during the pendency of the proceeding under

Section 30 of the Act, 1894, which is confined to the dispute as to the

apportionment, namely the disbursement of compensation amongst

the persons interested, there was no impediment in the way of the

petitioner to move an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894

to make a reference by the Collector subject to the outcome of the

proceedings under Section 30 of the Act, 1894. There cannot be a

dispute that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings of

making of the award and participated in the proceedings having

submitted his objection on 15.07.2011, thus, the argument of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 18(2) (a) of the Act,

1894 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, is liable to be turned down.








                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/937/2025                           ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

                                                                                                       undefined




                       8.      Be that as it may, it was permissible for the petitioner             to

proceed simultaneously, on the one hand in the proceedings under

Section 30 claiming to be a person interested . Both the proceedings

being independent to each other could have been continued

simultaneously or clubbed together in one Court inasmuch, as the

proceedings under Section 30 and Section 18 of the Act, 1894, both

were to be decided by the Civil Court.

8.1. As this has not been done and the petitioner waited for the

outcome of proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, 1894, the

acquiring body cannot be saddled with the additional liability of

interest by entertaining the reference application after 12 years of

making of the award.

9. On a query made by the Court as to whether the petitioner is