Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 780
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust and Others – Appellants
Versus
The Chairman and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2857 of 2011
WITH
Shree Nasik Panchavati Panjarapole Trust and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2011
Decided On : 22-08-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Avinish Kumar Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Ajit Pravin Wagh, Adv. Mr. Preshit Vilas Surshe, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, AOR Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Direction given by High Court will prevail over issue of limitation in Reference.
(2) As per rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, document has to be read as a whole and in its totality.
Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Reference – Limitation – Issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before Reference Court and before High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper – Very purpose of arriving at consent terms was to do away with hardship caused to both parties because of pendency of Writ Petition – Monetary loss was being caused to appellant- trust as it was losing interest on awarded amount – Consent terms as well as directions contained in order of High Court were silent as to within what period appellant should make application to respondent- Collector seeking Reference under Section 18 – Respondent-Committee taking undue advantage of such ambiguity in consent terms, raised issue of limitation before Reference Court – Such a plea raised after taking over possession of lands in question from appellant was not only not in consonance with tenor of consent terms but it smacked of ulterior motive on part of respondent – In view of directions given by High Court, issue of limitation contained in Section 18 of Act had clearly paled into insignificance, and respondent could not have raised such a plea before Reference Court or before High Court – Reference Court after considering all legal and factual aspects of matter had rightly held that Reference was filed with Collector within period of limitation as per order passed by High Court – Impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 5, 6 and 9)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – As per rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, document has to be read as a whole and in its totality – If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of clauses of document, courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with other clauses and with the purpose and intent of parties executing it. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Respondent no. 1- Market Committee had preferred two First Appeals being Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging award dated 07.03.2006 passed by Reference Court in Land Reference No. 525 of 1997. High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2009 allowed the First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 and set aside the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by Reference Court, and remanded the matter to Reference Court to decide the question as to whether Reference made to the Reference Court was within limitation as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and decide the Reference afresh.
Findings of Court:
High Court had committed gross error in interfering with well-reasoned findings recorded by Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to Reference Court for deciding it afresh.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The Respondent no. 1-Market Committee had preferred two First Appeals being Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by the II Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) in Land Reference No. 525 of 1997. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2009 allowed the First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 and set aside the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Reference Court, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question as to whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and decide the Reference afresh. The High Court vide the separate order of the even date, disposed of the First Appeal No. 1490 of 2006 observing that in view of the order passed in First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006, the appeal had become infructuous. The appellant-trust has preferred the instant appeals being aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court.
2. Though the case has a chequered history, the bare facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the present appeals may be summarised as under:
(i) The lands bearing Survey Nos. 74, 75, 76 and 29 situated at Nashik, Makhamalabad belonging to the appellant-trust were sought to be acquired by the respondent no. 2 for the respondent no. 1-Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 vide the Notification dated 17.06.1993.
(ii) In the said acquisition proceedings, an award was declared under Section 11 of the Act on 12.01.1996. The appellant-trust filed the Writ Petition being No. 607 of 1996 challenging the said proceedings on the ground that the award declared was beyond the statutory period of limitation. Initially the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellant (the petitioner in the said petition) on 06.02.1996, against which the respondent had preferred a special leave petition before this Court. However, the SLP came to be dismissed by this Court.
(iii) Since by virtue of the said interim order passed in the said writ petition, the possession of the lands in question continued with the appellant-trust and though an award was declared under Section 11 of the Act, the amount awarded remained with respondent no. 2, considering the hardship caused to both the parties, the appellant (the petitioner in the said petition) and the respondent no. 1-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (the respondent no. 4 in the said writ petition) arrived at a Settlement on 20.10.1997 and requested the High Court to dispose of the said writ petition in terms of the consent terms arrived at between the parties.
(iv) The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition No. 607 of 1996 by passing the following order on 20th October, 1997:
“By consent of Parties Petition taken up for final hearing on board today. The consent terms between the petitioner and 4th Respondent taken on record.
Perused the Consent Terms. The same are just, fair, and equitable and hence are accepted.
In view of the above, this shall be an order in terms of Consent Terms and it is hereby directed as under:
(a) It is directed that the relevant date for determining market value of suit land would be 1 and 1/2 year after the publication of (illegible) Notification under Section 6 i.e. 17.06.1993 and consequently both parties agree and admit that Market Value be determined as on 17.12.1994 date.
(b) It is further directed that the petitioner shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the 4th Respondent through 2nd respondent within 4 weeks from the date of this order and that the petitioner Trust shall be paid the amount determined under the Aw
