IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act would be attracted only at any stage of proceedings before the Collector if Collector has not passed the award under Section 11 of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 18-Application for reference-LAC declined to refer application to Civil Court on point of limitation-Award was made on 25.7.92 and compensation amount was paid on 6.8.92-Reference application was sent by post on 17.9.92 was received by authority on 18.9.92-Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act had been sent to claimant on 27.7.92-Evidence to show that respondent had not received notice personally-Contention of appellant that reference was time barred must fail.
       Held : Section 18 of the Act prescribes the procedure for reference to court and provides that every application for reference 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; and (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under sub-section 2 of Section 12 or within six months from the date of the Collector s award, whichever period shall first expire. In the present case clause (b) is attracted because the 1st respondent was not present, or represented before the Collector at the time he made his award. Therefore, notice under sub-section 2 of Section 12 was sent to the respondent herein on 27.7.92. It was returned on 29.7.92, said to be after proper service. The evidence on record shows that one Supai Gagrai had put his signatures on the bottom of the notice and received the notice. The name of the respondent herein is Supai Munda. The respondent has denied to have received the notice. It is his say that he is an illiterate person and cannot put his signatures. This will clearly demonstrate that the respondent herein has not received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act personally. If that is so, the notice upon the respondent was not duly served. The contention of the appellants on this ground, therefore, fails. (Para 10)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 11(2)-Land Acquisition Collector declined to make reference under Section 18 of the Act to Competent Court-Contention that award was made under Section 11(2) of the Act hence reference could not be made-Award was made on 25.7.1992 under Section 11 of the Act-Another award dated 6.8.1992 was alleged to have been made pursuant to agreement dated 6.8.1992-Provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act could be attracted only at any stage of proceedings before Collector if Collector had not passed the Award-Evidence showing that State Authority had coerced claimant to accept the amount of compensation fixed by authority and that claimant had made oral protest-Impugned order directing reference to be made to Civil Court suffered no illegality.
       Held : When the Award is made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the proceedings before him stand terminated as soon as the Award is made. The provision of sub-section 2 of Section 11 is attracted only at any stage of the proceedings before the Collector, that is to say, if the Collector has not passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act and the proceedings before him were still subsisting. In the present case, it clearly appears from the Award dated 25.7.1992 itself that it was made under Section 11 of the Act. The claimant Shri Supai Munda (respondent herein) has categorically stated that he received the compensation amount pursuant to the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, which was issued on 27.7.1992. The statement remains uncontroverted. In our view, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Collector to have recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. There can never be two awards - one under Section 11 of the Act and another under Section 11(2) of the Act over the same land acquired. (Para 12)
       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 31(2)-When evidence showed that claimant had received compensation under duress, no benefit of the provision to decline reference be claimed by State Authority. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19869 of 1997.

2. These two appeals have been preferred against the jugment and order dated 19th February, 1997 passed by the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 4424 of 1997 has been preferred by Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation and the appeal arising out of SLP (C) 19869 of 1997 has been preferred by the State of Orissa. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Facts of this case illustrate a classic example as to how the concerned authority subjugated and suppressed the rights of the illiterate rustic tribal villagers of far flung area from the madding crowd and coerced them to accept the price fixed by the concerned authority despite their protest.

4. The facts of the cases may be briefly recited. For brevity we are taking the facts from Civil Appeal No. 4424 of 1997.

5. The State Government acquired private land in village Gadpur under Sukinanda Tehsil in the District of Jajpur, Orissa for development of an integrated industrial complex. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was issued on 13.7.90. In the said Notification land comprising Acre 0.65/5 Kadi belonging to respondent No. 1 (contesting respondent) was also acquired along with other land owners. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.6.91. The Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 25.7.92. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the respondent-claimant on 27.7.92. An agreement was allegedly entered into between the State and the land owners on 6.8.92 on the basis of which the payment of compensation was made on that date, allegedly on the agreed terms.

6. From the record it appears that the 1st respondent orally protested as to the sufficiency of the amount of compensation awarded and wanted to have his protest recorded but the authority reprimanded him that if any protest or objection was recorded the amount of compensation would not be paid and the same would be deposited in the Treasury. It is alleged that the 1st respondent being an illiterate tribal person was coerced to receive the compensation amount without having recorded any protest. It is also alleged that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not received by the respondent. The 1st respondent, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference for determing higher compensation by regd. A.D. on 17.9.92 to the authority and the same was received on 18.9.92. On 8.12.92, the Land Acquisition Officer declined to refer the application under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil court. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed civil revision petition before the High Court. By order dated 11.9.95, the High Court disposed of the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 8.12.92 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re-hear the question of maintainability of the application under Section 18 of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent by adducing evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer, thereafter, heard the matter afresh and rejected the application by order dated 15.12.95 which has been again set aside by the High Court on revision being preferred by the respondent herein.

7. By the impugned order, the High Court directed the authority to send the reference to the appropriate civil court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Two main contentions have been raised before us:-

(a) Reference under Section 18 is not maintainable being barred by limitation; and

(b) When an Award is made under Section 11(2) of the Act, no reference can be made under Section 18 of the Act as the same is barred by proviso to Sub-section 2 of Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1226

IMPORTANT POINTProvisions of sub-section 2 of Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act would be attracted only at any stage of proceedings before the Collector if Collector has not passed the award under Section 11 of the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act would be attracted only at any stage of proceedings before the Collector if Collector has not passed the award under Section 11 of the Act.