Supreme Court Of India
State of Punjab
Versus
Qaisar Jehan Beigum
Decided On : February 11, 1963
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURT - LIMITATION - KNOWLEDGE OF AWARD - ESSENTIAL CONTENTS OF AWARD - DATE OF KNOWLEDGE - SECOND PART OF CLAUSE (B) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 18 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, evacuees and owners of land acquired by the appellant for use as a Field Firing and Bombing Range, were not notified about the acquisition and were not present at the time of the award. The Collector made an award on 25/10/1953 by which he allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 96.00 per acre in respect of the lands of the respondents. On 25/12/1954, the respondents made an application to the Collector for a reference under S. 18 of the Act, stating that they knew about the award on 22/07/1955 when they received the compensation amount and therefore the petition was within time. The Collector accepted the application and made a reference to the civil court. The Senior Subordinate Judge of Gurgaon discharged the reference on the ground that it was incompetent as the application for reference was barred by time. The High Court set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and directed him to deal with the reference on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the date of knowledge in this case was 22/07/1955, the date on which the compensation was paid, and the application for a reference was clearly made within six months from that date and was not therefore barred by time within the meaning of the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 18 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the application for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed beyond time?
Ratio Decidendi: The knowledge of the award 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 S. 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.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 16/11/1959 passed by the Punjab High Court on an application in revision in respect of an order dated 17/12/1957 by which the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Gurgaon held that a reference by the collector of Gurgaon under S. 18 of the Land acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) was incompetent by reason of the circumstance that it was made on an application filed beyond time. The appellant before us is the State of Punjab and the respondents are two ladies being related as mother and daughter. We shall presently state the relevant facts, but before we do so it is necessary to say that the only point on which the High Court disposed of the application in revision before it made by the respondents herein, was whether the civil court to which a reference is made by the Collector under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on an application filed beyond time, can reject the reference on the ground that the reference made is incompetent. On this point there is a conflict of judicial opinion. In disposing of the application in revision the learned single judge who heard it proceeded on the basis that he was bound by the Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1958 Punj 490 which held that the jurisdiction of the civil court on a reference under S. 18 was confined to considering and pronouncing upon any of the four differed objections to an award under the Act which might have been raised in the written application for the reference and the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation. Therefore the learned single Judge did not go into the further question as to whether the application made for a reference in the present case was filed beyond time or not as prescribed by the proviso to S. 18 of the Act. That question has however been agitated before us by reason of the decision in Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition officer, 1962 (1) SCR 676: (AIR 1961 SC 1500) a decision of this court which was not available at the time when the learned single judge of the Punjab High Court disposed of the application in revision.
( 2 ) WE proceed now to state the relevant facts. The respondents who were evacuees were owners of 55 bighas and 7 biswas of land in two villages Known as Salarpur and Nasirpur in the district of Gurgaon. Their lands in the aforesaid two villages along with lands of other persons in other villages were acquired by the appellant for use as a Field Firing and Bombing Range. The respondents were not notified about the acquisition and were not present at the time of the award. The respondents alleged and this was not denied, that the Collector treated the property as evacuee property and none of the notices contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to them. The Collector made an award on 25/10/1953 by which he allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 96. 00 per acre in respect of the lands of the respondents. On 25/12/1954 that is more than a year after the award, the respondents made an application to the Collector in which they said that certain agricultural lands of villages Salarpur and Nasirpur were compulsorily acquired by the Collector by an aware dated 30/10/1953 (October 30 was presumabsumably a mistake for October 25), but they were not given any notice of the acquisition proceedings. The respondents further stated that the award had fixed the compensation to be given to the land owners affected by the acquisition, but the amount to be paid to each owner was not apportioned therein. The respondents then referred to a judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court dated 13/11/1944 under which they were held to be the owners of the lands in question. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondents for Payment of the compensation money at an early date for the purpose of defraying the expenses of a daughters marriage, but withou
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.