The duty of the Collector to provide notice and award to the affected parties and the necessity of framing the issue of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25/09/2019 by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola in Land Acquisition reference Nos. 09/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015 and 12/2015, the present appeals are filed by the appellant. Relevant facts can be summarized as under:

3. The appellants were owners of field survey Nos.5, 20/1, 18/1 and 18/1-A, admeasuring 1.50 HR, 4.21hr, 4.3 HR and 4.3 HR of lands respectively situated at Batwadi Bk., Taluka Balapur, Dist. Akola. The Government has acquired 1.50 HR, 1.46 HR, 2.56 HR and 1.22 HR lands out of these land. The respondents have acquired this land as the same was coming under submergence while expansion of dam for construction of plant for respondent No.2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was published on 24/07/2008. Final Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 15/12/2008. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 12/03/2009. Award was passed on 28/05/2010 awarding compensation @ Rs.99,000/- per hectare.

4. The appellants were not present before the Collector when the awards were passed. Copy of awards were also not provided to the appellants/claimants along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. The appellants applied for certified copy of award on 23/02/2011 and received the same on 24/02/2011. Till that time the respondent has not supplied copy of award. On getting copy, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act for enforcement of compensation @ Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs.12,50,000/- per hectare. The 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division by the judgment and decree dated 25/09/2019 dismissed the reference. The main ground of challenge to the order passed by Reference Court is that without framing issue of limitation, the Reference Court dismissed the reference case only on the ground of limitation. The appellants have not got sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence and to file documents on this point in absence of issue. Secondly, the appellants neither were present before the Collector when award was passed nor they have received copies of award with notice issued to them under Section 12(2) of the Act.

They filed reference petitions on 06/04/2011 after receiving the certified copies on 24/02/2011. Therefore, the reference petitions are filed well within limitation. The Reference Court erred in law in holding that the reference case petition is filed beyond limitation. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that a Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants have duly established that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has paid inadequate compensation and the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is more, however, rejected the claim on the ground of limitation. The learned Counsel for the appellants therefore, pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.R. Nos.09/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015 and 12/2015 and to allow the Land Acquisition References.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned Reference Court wrongly place burden of proving negative facts on the appellants when this burden was on the respondent to prove that the copy of award supplied along with notice.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on Divya Exports Vs. Shalimar Video Company; (2014)16 SCC 194, Gannmani Anasuya and others Vs, Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and others; (2007)10 SCC 296, Premji Natthu Vs. State of Gujrath and another; (2012)5 SCC 250.

7. As against this learned A.G.P. vehemently argued that the order passed is perfectly justified. Issue of limitation is a question of law that can be taken up at any point of time and can be decided without framing issue. The learned A.G.P. also further argued that the burden is on p