Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ.
Shri Shriram Gopaldas Khatod – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6164 of 2015
Decided On : 31-03-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.D. Sapkal and Mr. V.B. Jagtap.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar and Mr. V.D. Gunale.
Important Point – The petitioner had constructive knowledge of the award.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 11-A-Acquisition of land.-Non- making of award within 2 years from date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of L.A. Act, renders acquisition lapsed.
The declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act is made on 23.11.2012. The draft award is prepared on 12.6.2013 and it is sent to Government for approval. The approval to the award was granted on 31.7.2013. As per the Supreme Court judgment in Bailamma`s case, the authority is not required to again sign the award after approval of Government. Still, in the present case the award is signed on 12.10.2013 after approval of the Government. The same is in limitation.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 12(2)-Award of compensation.-Preparing and signing award in presence of interested parties, not necessary.
The scheme of the Act as discussed above nowhere contemplates preparing and signing the award only in the presence of interested persons nor any consequence is provided of the notice of award not being given to interested persons. On the contrary, Section 12(2) suggests that award shall be filed in Collector Office and same shall be final and conclusive evidence. No doubt, Section 12(2) requires notice to be given to interested person of the award who is not present however, further consequences of not issuing immediate notice is not laid down. The notice under Section 12(2) would be relevant for construing the limitation for filing reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
1. The petitioner seeks declaration that the proceedings of proposal bearing No. SR 71/2000 in respect of acquisition of petitioner's land has lapsed U/s 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1894) and further declaration that the award annexed at Exh.V of the petition is not made within two years from date of Section 6 Declaration and therefore, proceeding has lapsed U/s 11A of the Act of 1894. The petitioner seeks directions against Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to initiate land acquisition proceedings under provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013).
2. The following facts are undisputed:
(a) The Notification U/s 4 of the Act of 1894 is issued on 21.9.2011;
(b) The declaration U/s 6 of the Act, 1894 is issued on 23.11.2012;
(c) The Draft award was prepared by SLAO on 12.6.2013;
(d) The Collector under communication dated 31.7.2013 approved the draft award prepared by SLAO;
(e) The petitioner was paid Rs. 1,35,16,800/- (One crore thirty five lacs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) on 10.1.2013 and another Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees thirty two lacs) on 12.9.2013;
(f) The possession of the land is taken over by Municipal Council from petitioner under agreement dated 8.12.1999;
(g) The final award is signed on 12.10.2013 by SLAO.
3. Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner in lucid manner put forth following propositions:
(i) The award U/s 11 has to be passed within two years from the date of declaration U/s 6 of the Act, 1894, failing which the award stands lapsed U/s 11A of the Act, 1894.
(ii) The award has to be passed on the day so fixed or on any adjourned date. In the present case the SLAO had not given any date for passing the award. The award has been signed by SLAO without intimating date on which the award is to be passed. There is no publication of the award.
(iii) The Award does not become final unless and until the same is communicated to the petitioner or to beneficiaries. That is the purport of Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894. The learned counsel to substantiate his contention relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, AIR 1961 SC 1500 (1). The learned counsel submits that the award is in Law offer. It involves communication of offer to the party whose land is sought to be acquired. The date of award used in the proviso of Section 12(2) must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. The learned counsel also relies on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 2012 SC 1624 and submits that the judgment in the of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another (supra) is considered in the later judgment of the Apex Court.
(iv) Passing of award does not mean merely signing of the award by SLAO and placing it in his drawer. It is required to be made known to the person in whose favour the same is passed.
(v) For the first time the petitioner got information about award being signed by SLAO on 21.2.2015 when on an application filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the petitioner was given copy of alleged communication dated 20.6.2014.
(vi) The SLAO was demanding deposit of remaining amount from Municipal Council vide various communications in 2014, such as communication dated 15.2.2014, 1.7.2014, 18.2.2015. The amount was required to be deposited by Municipal Corporation for enabling SLAO to pass the award. In absence of deposit of amount, SLAO would not have passed an order.
(vii) The Government has delegated its power under proviso to Section 11 giving approval to the award to the Commissioner. In the present case approval is given by Collector. The acquisition for aforesaid
