Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3430 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP (C) No.34815/2011)
Premji Nathu … Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and another … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Whether the application submitted by the appellant under Section 18(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was barred by time and
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh (hereinafter described as the
‘Reference Court’) rightly refused to entertain his prayer for enhancement of
the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the
1Page 2
question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment
dated 16.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court.
2. The appellant’s land was acquired by the State Government along with
other parcels of land for implementation of Mendarda – Amrapur Road
Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 4.3.1982 and the
declaration under Section 6(1) was published on 7.10.1982. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.110/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/- per Are for non-irrigated land.
3. After passing of the award, the Collector issued notice to the appellant
under Section 12(2), which was received by him on 22.2.1985. Similar notices
were received by the other landowners on 22.2.1985 and 23.2.1985. As the
copy of the award was not annexed with the notice, the appellant obtained
certified copy thereof through his Advocate and then submitted an application
dated 8.4.1985 to the Collector for making a reference to the Court for award of
higher compensation with solatium and interest. The reference made by the
Collector in the appellant’s case was registered as LR Case No.1/2000. The
references made at the instance of the other landowners were registered as LR
Cases Nos.2/2000 to 15/2000. In their claim petitions, the appellant and other
landowners pleaded that their land had irrigation facilities; that they were taking
2Page 3
crops of groundnut, wheat, fodder etc. and they are entitled to compensation at
the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are. In the reply filed on behalf of the State
Government, it was pleaded that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
correctly fixed market value of the acquired land after taking into consideration
the location, type and fertility of the acquired land. It was also pleaded that the
landowners are not entitled to higher compensation because they had accepted
the award without any protest.
4. It is not clear from the record whether in the reply filed on behalf of the
State Government, an objection was taken to the maintainability of the
applications filed by the appellant and other landowners on the ground that the
same were barred by time but the Reference Court did frame an issue in that
regard. This is evident from the tenor of the issues framed by the Reference
Court, which are extracted below:
“ 1) Whether applicant proves that the compensation
awarded is inadequate ? How much ?
2) What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled to ?
3) Whether this application is in time ?
4) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this reference
case ?
5) Whether this reference case is barred by S. 25 of L.A.
Act. ?
3Page 4
6) Whether the applicants have accepted the awarded
amount without raising any objection ? If
yes, what is the effect ?
7) Whether the applicant is entitled to get the amount of
solatium & interest?
8) What order ?”
5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the
parties, the Reference Court concluded that the landowners are entitled to
Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land
with an additional amount of Rs.2 per square meter, but declined relief to the
appellant and other landowners on the ground that the applications filed by
them were beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act.
6. The appellant and three other landowners challenged the judgment of the
Reference Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act which were
dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated
16.8.2011, who relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Himatnagar v. Nathaji Kacharaji, 2001(3)
GLH 312 and held that the applications filed by the appellant and other land
owners were barred by time.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the application filed by his
client was within the period prescribed under Section 18 (2)(b) of the Act and
4Page 5
the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed
serious error by refusing to enhance the compensation by erroneously thinking
that the application made on 8.4.1985 was barred by time. He submitted that 5
th
and 6
th
April, 1985 were holidays and, as such, the application filed by the
appellant on 8.4.1985 could not have been treated as barred by time. Learned
counsel further submitted that due to hyper-technical approach adopted by the
Reference Court and the learned Single Judge, the landowners have been
rendered remediless.
8. Shri Preetesh Kapur, learned counsel for the respondents produced copy
of the calendar of Gujarat for 1985 to show that 5
th
April was holiday being
Good Friday but 6
th
April was a working day and argued that if the period of six
weeks is counted from the date of receipt of the notice issued under Section
12(2), the conclusion recorded by the Reference Court and the learned Single
Judge that the applications filed by the appellant and other landowners were
beyond the time prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act cannot be faulted.
9. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the
record. Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, which have bearing on the decision of
this appeal read as under:
5Page 6
“12. Award of Collector when to be final. - (1) Such award
shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as
hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as
between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they
have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the
true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to
such of the persons interested as are not present personally or
by their representatives when the award is made.
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 person 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.”
10. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows that by virtue of
Section 12(1), an award made by the Collector is treated final and conclusive
evidence of the true area and value of the land and apportionment of the
6Page 7
compensation among the persons interested. In terms of Section 12(2), the
Collector is required to give notice of his award to the interested persons who
are not present either personally or through their representatives at the time of
making of award. Section 18(1) provides for making of reference by the
Collector to the Court for the determination of the amount of compensation etc.
Section 18(2) lays down that an application for reference shall be made within
six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award, if at the time of making of
award the person seeking reference was present or was represented before the
Collector. If the person is not present or is not represented before the Collector,
then the application for reference has to be made within six weeks of the receipt
of notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the
Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.
11. The reason for providing six months from the date of the award for
making an application seeking reference, where the applicant did not receive a
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, while providing only six weeks from the
date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act for making an
application for reference where the applicant has received a notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act is obvious. When a notice under Section 12(2) of the
Act is received, the landowner or person interested is made aware of all relevant
particulars of the award which enables him to decide whether he should seek
7Page 8
reference or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know that an award has
been made, he would require further time to make enquiries or secure copies so
that he can ascertain the relevant particulars of the award. What needs to be
emphasised is that along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act,
the land owner who is not present or is not represented before the Collector at
the time of making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he
may effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek reference to the
Court.
12. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC
1500, this Court was called upon to decide whether the expression ‘date of
award’ is to be interpreted with reference to the time when the award is signed
by the Collector or from the date the affected party comes to know about the
same and held as under:
“Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law no
more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to the
owner of the property then the making of the award as properly
understood must involve the communication of the offer to the
party concerned. That is the normal requirement under the
contract law and its applicability to cases of award made under
the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus considered the
date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference to
the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered
by him in his office; it must involve the consideration of the
question as to when it was known to the party concerned either
actually or constructively. If that be the true position then the
literal and mechanical construction of the words ‘the date of the
8Page 9
award’ occurring in the relevant section would not be
appropriate.
There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion.
If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the
Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to
be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects
the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all
decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that
the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The
knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either
actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be
satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus
considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in
the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing
it in the Office of the Collector; it must involve the
communication of the said award to the party concerned either
actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the
presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it can be
said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the
pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and
it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced
the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if
the said party is not actually present on the date of its
pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its
pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not
present the award can be said to be made when it is
communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party
affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an
essential requirement of fair play and natural justice the
expression ‘the date of the award’ used in the proviso must
mean the date when the award is either communicated to the
party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In
our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the
words ‘from the date of the Collector's award’ used in the
proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.”
(emphasis supplied)
9Page 10
13. In State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, the
principle laid down in Harish Chandra’s case was reiterated and it was held:
“It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish
Chandra case is that the party affected by the award must know
it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will
run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the
award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an
award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the
essential contents of the award. These contents may be known
either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated
to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be
obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award
whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in
court either personally or through his representative when the
award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he
knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme
of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean
knowledge of the essential contents of the award.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 545, this Court
interpreted Section 18 and laid down the following propositions:
“(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested
(or his authorised representative), he has to make the
application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's
award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the
application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
1Page 11
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not
present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the
notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make
the application within six months of the date on which he
actually or constructively came to know about the contents of
the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt
of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for
six months for making the application on the ground that the
date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the
date of knowledge of the contents of the award.”
The Court then held:
“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.
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 possession of the
acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a
case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of
1Page 12
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.”
15. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the conclusion recorded
by the Reference Court, which has been approved by the High Court that the
application filed by the appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable. A
careful reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the application
filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the
Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985. Thereafter,
his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated
8.4.1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that copy of the
award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that
he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference. On
behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the
Reference Court to show that copy of the award was sent to the appellant along
with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding issue No.3, this aspect has been
totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the
1Page 13
application filed on 8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b).
The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious error by
approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering the
fact that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was not
accompanied by a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise
of right vested in the appellant to seek reference under Section 18(1).
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and the
award passed by the Reference Court are set aside and the respondents are
directed to pay enhanced compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.450 per
Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land with an
additional amount of Rs.2 per square meter. The appellant shall also be entitled
to other statutory benefits like solatium and interest. The respondent shall
calculate the amount payable to the appellant and make payment within three
months from today.
17. Although, the other landowners are not shown to have prosecuted the
matter further except that three of them filed appeals under Section 54 of the
Act, we are convinced that this is a fit case in which the Court should exercise
power under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to pay
enhanced compensation, solatium etc. even to those who did not file appeals
1Page 14
before the High Court and/or have not approached this Court by filing petitions
under Article 136 of the Constitution. This approach is consistent with the
judgments of this Court in - B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR
682, Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (2000) 5 SCC
262, Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita v. State of Orissa and others (1993) 2
SCC 746 and B. Prabhakar Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1985
(Supp) SCC 432. Therefore, we direct that the other landowners shall also be
paid enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits within three months
from today.
…..……….....……..….………………….…J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
…………..………..….………………….…J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
New Delhi,
April 09, 2012.
1
