Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deced. Bapu Lal Thru. Lrs. Kachrulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1 FA-252-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 224 of 2015
DECED. GULAB THRU. LRS. MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 225 of 2015
DECED. RUGGA THRU. LRS. BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 226 of 2015
DECED. DHULJI THRU. LRS. SAJJAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 227 of 2015
DECED. SEVA THRU. LRS. DECED. BALI BAI THRU.LRS. LAXMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 228 of 2015
DECED. HEERAJI THRU. LRS. DECED. GENDIBAI THRU. LRS.
KAILASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 230 of 2015
GHASIRAM
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
2 FA-252-2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 231 of 2015
BABULAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL No. 232 of 2015
PRAKASHCHAND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 233 of 2015
DECED. NOOR KHA THRU. LRS. NAGINA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 234 of 2015
DECED. TAKE SINGH THRU. LRS. BABULAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL No. 235 of 2015
DECED. HEERA THRU. LRS. DECED. GENDIBAI THRU. LRS.
KAILASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 236 of 2015
DEVI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 237 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
3 FA-252-2015
DECED. DARIYAO SINGH THRU. LRS. MAKHANSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 238 of 2015
DECED. JAGANNATH THRU. LRS. SAJANBAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL No. 239 of 2015
LAXMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 240 of 2015
DECED. DHANNA THRU. LRS. MAANSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 241 of 2015
DECED. DARIYAO SINGH THRU. LRS. BABULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 242 of 2015
DECED. AMBARAM THRU. LRS GEETABAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 244 of 2015
POORA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL No. 245 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
4 FA-252-2015
MOHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 246 of 2015
DECED. JAGGA THRU. LRS. DARYAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 247 of 2015
DECED. RUGGA THRU. LRS. BALKRISHNA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 248 of 2015
AATMARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 249 of 2015
AATMARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 250 of 2015
DECED. BABULAL THRU. LRS. ANOKHILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 251 of 2015
BALU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 252 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
5 FA-252-2015
DECED. BAPU LAL THRU. LRS. KACHRULAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 253 of 2015
DECD.JAMNA LAL THRU.LRS.ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 257 of 2015
AMBARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 258 of 2015
DECED. NANA THRU. LRS. JAGGU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 259 of 2015
DECED. BHERA THRU. LRS. PARWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 260 of 2015
DECED. BANSILAL THRU. LRS. SURESHCHANDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 261 of 2015
PRABHULAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 262 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
6 FA-252-2015
DECED. DHANNA THRU. LRS. KISAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 263 of 2015
DULICHAND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 264 of 2015
MAANGU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 265 of 2015
DECED. SHIVNARAYAN THRU. LRS. MAKHANSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 266 of 2015
DECED. GANGARAM THRU. LRS. BALKRISHNA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 267 of 2015
MOHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 268 of 2015
DECED. KAMLABAI THRU. LRS. OMPRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 269 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
7 FA-252-2015
LAXMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 270 of 2015
BHANWAR LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 271 of 2015
DECED. DEVA THRU. LRS. BHURI BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 272 of 2015
UDAYSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 273 of 2015
DECED. KABIR KHAN THRU. LRS. HAJRA BEE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 277 of 2015
CHHEETU LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 278 of 2015
DECED. NAGJIRAM THRU. LRS. KAMAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 279 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
8 FA-252-2015
BADRILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 280 of 2015
DECED. JAGANNATH THRU. LRS. MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 285 of 2015
SIDDHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 286 of 2015
GHASIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 287 of 2015
DECED. BABULAL THRU. LRS. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 288 of 2015
DECED. PUNJA THRU. LRS. DEVILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 290 of 2015
DECED. DEVA THRU. LRS. SITARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 291 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
9 FA-252-2015
DECED. KODIYA @ KODA THRU. LRS. SIDDHANATH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 292 of 2015
DECED. BALDEV THRU. LRS. GANGARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 293 of 2015
REWARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 294 of 2015
DECED. GANGARAM THRU. LRS. RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 295 of 2015
DECED. BAPULAL THRU. LRS. KASHIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 40 of 2024
MANGILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 41 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 18-2-25
10:35:15
10 FA-252-2015
PARVAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 42 of 2024
RAMBHAU SHRI SOMNATH DECEASED LRS KAMAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K. K. Gupta - Advocate along with Shir R.B. Singh for the
appellants.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawede appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
JUDGMENT
Since these appeals involve common questions of facts and law,
they have been heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Facts are being taken from First Appeal No.224 of 2015.
3. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1894) has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 01.03.2014 passed
by the First Additional District Judge, District Dewas, whereby their
reference application preferred under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has been
dismissed as barred by time.
4 . The State Government proposed to acquire lands including that
held by the appellants for the purpose of construction of Lakhundar Bandh
11 FA-252-2015
Pariyojna, Gram Lasudiya Kulmi Pargana Tonkkhurd , District Dewas.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 24.01.1992.
The notification under Section 6 was published on 26.06.1992. Eventually
award for compulsory acquisition of the lands of the appellants was passed
on 25.06.1994. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an application before the
Land Acquisition Officer for enhancement of the amount of interest awarded
to them under the award on which Revenue Case No.58/B-121/2002-2003
was registered. The application was preferred by the appellants on the
ground that the amount under the award has been paid to them with
considerable delay. By supplementary award dated 01.08.2003 the appellants
were granted interest on the amount of compensation as prayed by them.
5. Thereafter, the appellants on 15.06.2007 filed an application
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Officer for
making a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of amount of
compensation as awarded to them under the award dated 25.06.1994 in
respect to their land and house stating that they ought to have been awarded
the same on the basis of market value as then existing.
6. Reply was filed by the State Government to the said application.
Reference as prayed for by the appellants was made by the Land Acquisition
Officer to the Civil Court on 27.12.2011. Upon receipt of the reference the
same was registered by the Civil Court and reply was filed by the
respondents in which an objection was taken that the reference is barred by
time. The parties thereafter led oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
12 FA-252-2015
7. Eventually, by the impugned award, though the Court below has
entered into the merits of the case also, but has recorded a finding that the
reference made by the appellants was barred by time and has consequently
dismissed the same on that ground being aggrieved by which the appellants
are in appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that gross
injustice has been caused to the appellants in the matter of determination of
compensation for their land and house. The same ought to have been
awarded to them on the basis of market value of the property but the same
was not done. The material available on record is sufficient to arrive at a just
and fair compensation, which has also been done by the reference Court. The
same was proper and the amount as calculated thereunder deserves to be
awarded to the appellants. Merely for the technical reason of the claim being
barred by time they cannot be deprived of their legal rights. It would be
wholly inequitable and unfair for not awarding the said amount to the
appellants. They are villagers and were not having knowledge of the
proceedings. No notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was ever served
upon them. They had acquired knowledge of the award only on 24.05.2007
after which they had preferred the application under Section 18 of the Act,
1894, which ought to have been held to be within time. The copy of the
award was also never served upon the appellants.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has
submitted that the appellants were more than aware of the award and had in
fact earlier filed an application for enhancement of the amount of interest
13 FA-252-2015
awarded on the compensation amount awarded to them under the impugned
award. It is hence not open for them to contend that they were not aware of
the award. On their application for enhancement of interest a supplementary
award was passed on 01.08.2003 but the application for making reference
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 was preferred by them in the year 2007,
which was apparently barred by time as has correctly been held by the
reference Court. The appeal hence deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
11. Reference to the Civil Court is made under Section 18 of the
Act, 1894 by filing a written application to the Collector. The same can be as
regards objection to the amount of compensation determined in the award. It
has to be made within six weeks from the date of the award, if the person
making the application was present or represented before the Collector at the
time when the award was made and in other cases within six weeks on
receipt of notice from Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 or
within six months from the date of Collector's award. For ready reference,
Section 18 is reproduced as under :
"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 Collectors award;
(b)in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
14 FA-252-2015
Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from
the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire."
12. In the present case, the appellants were not present before the
Collector at the time when the award was made. A finding has also been
recorded that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was served
upon the appellants. The period of limitation for the appellants would hence
be six months from the date of the Collector's award. The expression "six
months from the date of the Collector's award" has been interpreted by the
Apex Court in various judgments from time to time and it has been held that
the date of award would mean the date when the award is either
communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or
constructively. The period of limitation would hence begin when the person
whose rights are affected by the award gets to know of the award either
Actually or constructively.
13. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545 it was held as
under :
"30. When a person interested makes an application for reference
seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge,
the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was
not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the
knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months
prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged
by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the
negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person
interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the
person interested was present either in person or through his
representative when the award was made, or that he had received a
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the
contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can
be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested
had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land,
or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering
15 FA-252-2015
possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had
filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of
the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The
person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the
name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue
municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the
Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have
knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling
circumstances not to do so."
(emphasis supplied)
14. It hence has to be ascertained as to whether the appellants had
acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the award. In this regard, it is
observed that on 23.09.2002, the appellants had filed an application before
the Land Acquisition Officer for enhancement of the amount of interest
awarded to them under the award dated 25.06.1994 on the ground that the
amount of compensation has been paid to them belatedly. On their
application supplementary award as regards interest was passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 01.08.2003. In the aforesaid application, the
appellants had specifically stated that the award has been passed on
25.06.1994 and that the amount of compensation as determined therein has
been paid to them between 25.01.1996 and 31.01.1996. A perusal of the said
application emphatically shows that the appellants had actual knowledge of
the award dated 25.06.1994 and its content and they had also received the
amount of compensation as determined thereunder.
15. Thus even if the appellants were not present at the time of
making of the award or were not issued notice under Section 12(2) of the
Act, 1894 then also from the aforesaid proceedings it is crystal clear that at
16 FA-252-2015
least on 23.09.2002 they very well had the knowledge of the award and its
contents. However, no steps were taken by them for making an application
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for making a reference to the Civil Court
for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The application made by
them on 15.06.2007 was hence apparently beyond a period of six months as
per proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894 and the reference Court has
rightly held the reference to be barred by time.
16. Since the reference application made by the appellants was
itself barred by time, even though the reference Court has gone into the
merits of the case, in this appeal, the merits are not required to be gone into.
Once it is held that the reference itself was barred by time then there is no
justification or legal propriety for considering the merits of the case.
17. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that gross injustice would be caused to the appellants if their case is not
decided on merits, but in this regard, it has been settled by the Apex Court
that if a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is barred by time, then
the necessary consequence is its dismissal as there is no power to condone
the delay. The Limitation Act does not apply to proviso to Section 18 (2) of
the Act,1894. In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal
Chandulal, (1996) 9 SCC 414. It was held by the Apex Court as under:
"18. Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided
under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered
view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso
to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a
court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1).
Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for
extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 18. The High Court, therefore, was not right in
its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the
17 FA-252-2015
Limitation Act."
18. This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of
Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545 in which it was held as
under:
"16. As the Collector is not a civil court and as the provisions of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been made applicable to
proceedings before the Collector under the Act, and as there is no
provision in the Act enabling the Land Acquisition Collector to extend
the time for making an application for reference, the Collector cannot
entertain any application for extension, nor extend the time for seeking
reference, even if there are genuine and bona fide grounds for
condoning delay. This view was reiterated in SAIL v. SUTNI Sangam
[(2009) 16 SCC 1] . Therefore, the observation of the High Court that
an application for condonation of delay could have been made by the
person interested, is incorrect."
19. This view was also taken in SAIL v. Sutni Sangam and others,
(2009) 16 SCC 1, wherein the fact of the awardee being poor and illiterate
was also taken into consideration and it was held as under :
"45. When the statute provides for a law of limitation, compliance
therewith is mandatory. For the purpose of applying the statute of
limitation, the courts should, however, be liberal in their approach.
Section 18(2)(b) of the Act provides for the maximum period of six
months from the date of the Collector's award. It was, therefore,
impermissible to direct references to be made after a long period
particularly when the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 cannot be said to have any application.
50. We will, however, proceed on the assumption that most of the
awardees were poor and illiterate and they were not aware of their
rights. It is one thing to say that an association, like the first
respondent, takes up its cause but it would be another thing to say that
only due to the said reason the mandatory provisions of the statutes
would not be necessary to be complied with.
53. The Association, therefore, could file a writ application
representing its members but, stricto sensu, it could not have filed any
application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. For the
purpose of making such an application, indisputably, the period of
limitation provided for therein must be resorted to. However, there
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a statute of limitation should
receive strict construction."
20. The aforesaid view has been consistently taken by the Apex Court in
a series of decisions. No purpose would be served by multiplying the authorities
in that regard, since the view in all of them is consistent to the effect that in case
18 FA-252-2015
the application under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894 is barred by time then there
is no option but to dismiss the same as such and there is no power to condone the
delay in filing of the same.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, since the application made
by the appellants under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894 before the Land
Acquisition Officer was barred by time, the reference Court has not committed
any error in dismissing the same as such in view of which the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants that for doing complete justice in the matter and
considering the hardships caused to the appellants the matter be decided on merits
cannot be accepted.
22. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having
been committed by the reference Court in dismissing the reference as barred by
time. The appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.
23. Let the original copy of this order be kept in the record of F.A. No.224
of 2015 and a signed copy thereof be kept in all other connected appeals.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
