Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. B.P. Saraf Dr. (Mrs.) P.D. Upasani, JJ.
Smt. Laxmibai Narayan Patil another.... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 586 of 1991, decided on 3-2-1997.
Advocates appeared :
Rajendra v. Pai, for the petitioners.
A.M. Bagla, A.G.P., for the respondents.
Sections 18(2) Proviso (b) and 12(2)-Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Section 12-Award by Special Land acquisition Officer-absence of owner at the time of presentation of award:-Service of notice under Section 12(2) to owner-For reference-Time limit from the date of receipt of notice-Reference after six week beyond limitation-Proceeding before Collector for reference-No applicability of Limitation Act.-Counsel for the petitioners. Contends that the limitation should be calculated from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the award because without the same it was not possible for the petitioners to know as to how the compensation had been calculated and to make an effective application Court carefully considered the above submission. However on the face of clear language of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act. Court find it difficult to accept the same. Obviously the present case falls under the first part of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 because the petitioners had received the notice under subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Act from the Collector. Once the notice was received by the petitioners the petitioners must be fixed with the knowledge of the contents of the award. It is then not open to the petitioners to contend that they had no knowledge of the contents of the award till they got certified copy of the award and that the period of limitation of six weeks should be calculated from the receipt of the certified copy. Such a contention goes counter to the very scheme and purport of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. As observed by the Supreme Court to State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begam (supra) if the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act. The party must be obviously fixed with the 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 it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. The contents may be known other actually or constructively. As stated earlier, notice under Section 12(2) is notice of the award to such of the persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. Notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act obviously means notice of the essential contents of the award viz., true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case in our opinion, the respondent No. 2 was right in rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act as being barred by limitation, the same having been made after the expiry of the period of six weeks from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.
In cases falling under the first part of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act. The limitation would run from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 12(2). The date of receipt of the certified copy has no relevance for that purpose.
Section 12-See Land Acquisition Act, Sections 18(2) Proviso (b), 12(2).
2.The land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was made under section 11 of the Act on 8th August, 1989. The petitioners were not present or represented before the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time he made his award. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice under section 12(2) of the Act on 22nd August 1989. The petitioners applied for reference under section 18(1) of the Act on 5th January, 1990. However, the said application having not been made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the Act, was dismissed by the respondent No. 2, as being barred by limitation. The petitioners have challenged the above order.
3.We have heard Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the application of petitioners under section 18 of the Act is not barred by limitation. The case of the petitioners is that after receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the Act on 22nd August 1989, the petitioners made an application for certified copy of the award on 12th September, 1989. The certified copy was received by them on 19th December, 1989. After receipt of the certified copy, the petitioners prepared the application under section 18(1) of the Act and filed the same on 5th January, 1990. The learned Counsel submits that the limitation of six weeks prescribed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act should be computed from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order by the petitioners and not from the date of receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the Act and if it is so computed, the application of the petitioners is within time. Mr. Bagla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that in a case where notice has been served under section 12(2) of the Act, the application for reference under section 18 of the Act should be made within six weeks of the receipt of such notice. According to Mr. Bagla, there is no basis and/or justification for the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that the limitation should be computed from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the award or that in computing the period of limitation of six weeks, the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the award should be excluded. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh)1, 1995 3 S.C.C. 330 and (Officer on Special Duty (Land Acqn.) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal)2, 1996(9) S.C.C. 414.
4.We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Section 18 of the Act, which provides for a reference to Court and procedure thereon, reads as follows :-
"18 Reference to Court--- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken :
Provided that every such application 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;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
