Important point
Where Land Acquisition Officer held that appellant being a lessee was not entitled to any compensation and compensation was payable only to land owners it amounts to award and appellant could have made reference application only within six weeks of notice u/s 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act served upon him.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18—Reference—Limitation—Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or Court considering a reference u/s 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application for reference—Appellant was lessee of the land acquired by State Government—Land Acquisition Officer held that appellant being a lessee was not entitled to any compensation and compensation was payable to land owners—It did amount to making of an award and it could not be hold that no award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was declared—Application u/s 18 of the Act was not filed within six weeks of receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act—High Court rightly held reference application to be barred by limitation.
       Held : The submission urged on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that since no amount had been awarded to the appellant, the award declared on August 29, 1994 was not an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, must also be rejected. It is not disputed before us and also noticed by the High Court, that the Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellant being a lessee was not entitled to any compensation and compensation was payable only to the land owners, namely, respondents 2 to 135. We are here not concerned with the correctness of the decision, but the fact remains that having considered the claim of the appellant for compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim. This does amount to the making of an award, commonly described as “nil award”. If the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, it was open to him to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act which the appellant actually did. We, therefore, cannot hold that no award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was declared on August 29, 1994, since the claim of the appellant was considered and was totally rejected. There was, therefore, no question of giving any calculation of the manner in which the compensation was computed. Since, the application under Section 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the High Court did not commit any error in holding that the application was barred by limitation. It was not disputed before us that the Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference under Section 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the aforesaid Section. (Paras 13 and 14)
       The submission urged on behalf of the appellant relying upon the decision of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1500 that in the instant case even if it is assumed that the appellant had knowledge of the award at least on December 8, 1994, he could make an application within six months from the date of such knowledge, would have deserved serious consideration, but for the finding recorded by us earlier that the appellant had notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, period of limitation for filing the application under Section 18 was six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and not six months from the date of knowledge of the award. (Para 15)

Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated October 30, 2001 in First Appeal No. 981 of 1996. By the aforesaid judgment the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra/respondent No. 1 herein and held that the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference was barred by limitation. The sole question which, therefore, arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the said application filed by the appellant herein under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by time.

2. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-

One Kulkarni held a lease executed on December 3, 1979 for a period of 20 years in respect of an area of 142 Hectares 78 Ares from the State of Maharashtra for mining Silica sand. The aforesaid lessee applied to the State of Maharashtra on May 3, 1991 for transfer of the mining lease in favour of the appellant herein. In the mean time, on October 8, 1991 a proposal was submitted to the Collector of Sindhudurg by Respondent No. 136, namely, M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. for acquisition of land for the purpose of the said Corporation situated in village Achirne. Pursuant thereto land measuring 13 Hectare 9 Ares were notified for acquisition by Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on February 13, 1992. Subsequent thereto the Government by its Order dated February 20, 1992 allowed the application for transfer of mining lease in favour of the appellant herein. This included the lands notified for acquisition of village Achirne. The agreement was thereafter executed by and between the aforesaid Kulkarni and the appellant on May 15, 1992 and the lease-hold rights were transferred in favour of the appellant.

3. On July 25, 1992 a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in respect of the lands earlier notified on February 13, 1992.

4. Sometime in May 1994, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay being Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1994 for quashing the acquisition proceeding as also the inquiry conducted under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. It was also prayed that respondent No. 136 M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. be restrained from taking any further action in the matter. This writ petition was disposed of by order of June 7, 1994 which directed the State of Maharashtra to comply with the requirements of Section 17(3)(a) of the Act within eight weeks and declare the award within eight weeks thereafter. The award ultimately came to be declared on August 29, 1994 which awarded compensation only to the land owners/respondents 2 to 135 and not to the appellant who was a mere lessee and found not entitled to grant of compensation. It is also not disputed that on September 18, 1994 a telegram was sent to the appellant herein by the Special Land Acquisition Officer informing him of the declaration of the award which translated into English reads as follows:-

“This Office No. LQN/Konkan Railway Project/Sank-3-Archirne 463/91 dated 31-8-94 be perused Mouje Achirne Taluka Vaibhavwadi Award No. 463/91 has been declared on 29-8-94”.

“As per the discussion in this Award first demand is rejected”.

5. On receiving the telegram on September 20, 1994 the appellant immediately applied to the Collector for providing him a copy of the award filed in his office. Thereafter, on December 9, 1994, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 447 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court. In the Writ Petition, he admitted the fact that although an award had been declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer it had not been officially served upon him. The appellant annexed to this writ petition as Ex. B an ordinary copy of the award and challenged the validity of the award in as much as the appellant had not been awarded any compensation. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1155

Cases Referred (2)