2010 Supreme(SC) 199

2010 (2) Supreme 99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and K S Radhakrishnan,JJ.
Bhagwan Das & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of UP & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 24191-92 of 2008]
with
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2071-2072 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24193-94 of 2008]
Decided on : 26-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide for appeals against awards or orders of Land Acquisition Collector.
2. As the Collector is not a court when he discharges his functions as a statutory authority under section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 cannot be invoked for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 18(2) of the Act of 1894.
3. The words ‘date of the collector’s award’ occurring in proviso (b) to section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of essential contents of the award, and not actual date of the Collector’s award.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18,54-Acquisition of lands of appellants for establishing a Upmandi by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti-Application by appellants seeking a reference under section 18 rejected by Collector on ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of award- Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed as not maintainable, on ground that an alternative remedy,by way of an appeal under section 54 of the Act, was available against order passed by Land Acquisition Officer- Appellants filed a review petition pointing out that Section 54 of Act was inapplicable as it only provided for appeals against awards of courts-Said review petition was dismissed on the ground that appellants ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay along with the application for reference, before Land Acquisition Collector- Appeals –Held Section 54 of the Act provides for an appeal from award of court in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court, and from decree of the High Court to the Supreme Court-There is a difference between an ‘award of Collector’ which is an offer of compensation by the Collector as the agent of the Government, and ‘an award of the court’ which is a determination of the compensation by a civil court on a reference by the Collector-Again, the Collector can either make a reference or refuse to make a reference to the court under section 18 of the Act or under section 30 of the Act, and such orders of the Collector are merely acts of a Statutory Authority in exercise of statutory functions and are not adjudicatory in Nature- Such orders are not awards- The Land Acquisition Collector is not a Court, nor his award or order, an award of the Court- While the proceedings of a court resulting in an award of the court are judicial proceedings, neither the proceedings of the Collector under section 11 of Act resulting in an award of the Collector, nor the proceedings relating to an application seeking reference, are judicial proceedings-Section 54 does not provide for appeals against awards or orders of Land Acquisition Collector- Hence the assumption of the High Court that an order of the Collector refusing to refer a claim for increase in compensation to the civil court under section 18(1) of the Act, is an ‘award of the court’ appealable under section 54 of the Act, held wholly erroneous (Para 5)

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18- Delay in filing an application seeking reference-Whether can be condoned by Collector if sufficient cause is shown-Held in view of special limitation provided under the proviso to section 18 of the Act, section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, cannot be applied to proviso to section 18 of the Act; and therefore, the benefit of sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act 1963, will not be available in regard to applications under section 18(1) of the Act- As the Collector is not a court when he discharges his functions as a statutory authority under section 18(1) of the Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 cannot be invoked for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 18(2) of the Act-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, Collector cannot entertain any application for extension, nor extend time for seeking reference, even if there are genuine and bonafide grounds for condoning delay- Hence observation of High Court that an application for condonation of delay could have been made by person interested, held incorrect (Para 7)

       [2009 (16) SCC 1], relied

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18- Period of six months under clause (b) of proviso to section 18 of the Act –Whether should be reckoned from date of knowledge of the award of the Collector or from date of award itself- Held land loser does not get a right to seek reference to civil court unless the award is made- This means that he can make an application seeking reference only when he knows that an award has been made- If the words six months from the ‘date of the Collector’s award’s is literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not the date of knowledge of the award, it would lead to unjust and absurd results-If the words ‘date of the Collector’s award’ are literally interpreted, effect would be that on the expiry of six months from the date of award, even though the claimant had no notice of the award, he would lose the right to seek a reference- That would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between those who are notified of the award and those who are not notified of the award- Unless procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being violative of Article 14 as also Article 300A of the Constitution of India-To avoid such consequences,the words ‘date of the collector’s award’ occurring in proviso (b) to section 18 requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of essential contents of the award, and not actual date of the Collector’s award (Para 11)

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Proviso to Section 18-Interpretation of -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- 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)- If the person interested or his representative was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive 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- If a person interested receives a notice under section 12(2) of Act, after 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 application on the ground that date of receipt of notice under section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of award (Para 12) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Proviso to Section 18-Application by appellants seeking a reference under section 18 rejected by Collector on ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of award- Writ petition thereagainst - Dismissed -Review petition -Dismissed –Appeals -No dispute that award was not made in presence of the claimant-land owner or his representative, and no notice of the award under section 12(2) of the Act was tendered to him- Claimant became aware of award only when he received the notice calling upon him to receive the payment of the award- In the absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of appellants that they became aware that an award was made only when the notice dated 25.10.2007 was tendered to them and they became aware of contents of the award only on 16.11.2007 had to be accepted- In the circumstances, date of award had to be taken as 16.11.2007- The application filed on 16.11.2007 was therefore in time- Land Acquisition Collector ought to have entertained the application seeking Reference- High Court, instead of directing Collector to make a reference, wrongly rejected writ petition on ground that an appeal is maintainable under section 54 of Act and also wrongly rejected review petition on ground that they could have made an application for condonation of delay before Land Acquisition Collector-Impugned orders of High Court set aside-Appeals allowed (Paras 14, 15)

       Facts of the Case :

        Lands of appellants were acquired herein in the instant case for establishing a Upmandi by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. An Application filed by appellants seeking a reference under section 18 was rejected by Collector on ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of award. Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed as not maintainable, on ground that an alternative remedy,by way of an appeal under section 54 of the Act, was available against order passed by Land Acquisition Officer. Appellants filed a review petition pointing out that Section 54 of Act was inapplicable as it only provided for appeals against awards of courts.Said review petition was dismissed on the ground that appellants ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay along with the application for reference, before Land Acquisition Collector.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said orders of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Section 54 of the Act provides for an appeal from award of court in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court, and from decree of the High Court to the Supreme Court. Section 3(d) of Act defines expression “court” to mean a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed a special officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the court under the Act. On the other hand, the expression “Collector” is defined in section 2(c) of the Act as the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. There is a difference between an `award of Collector’ which is an offer of compensation by the Collector as the agent of the Government, and `an award of the court’ which is a determination of the compensation by a civil court on a reference by the Collector. Again, the Collector can either make a reference or refuse to make a reference to the court under section 18 of the Act or under section 30 of the Act, and such orders of the Collector are merely acts of a Statutory Authority in exercise of statutory functions and are not adjudicatory in Nature. Such orders are not awards. The Land Acquisition Collector is not a Court, nor his award or order, an award of the Court. While the proceedings of a court resulting in an award of the court are judicial proceedings, neither the proceedings of the Collector under section 11 of Act resulting in an award of the Collector, nor the proceedings relating to an application seeking reference, are judicial proceedings. Section 54 does not provide for appeals against awards or orders of Land Acquisition Collector. Hence the assumption of the High Court that an order of the Collector refusing to refer a claim for increase in compensation to civil court under section 18(1) of the Act, is an `award of the court’ appealable under section 54 of the Act, held wholly erroneous.

       Result : Appeals allowed