Back
High Court Of Calcutta
P.K.Banerjee & G.N.Ray, JJ.
State Of West Bengal
Vs.
Ramkali Bhattacharjee
Appeal from Original Decree 338-340 of 1958
Decided On : Sep 28, 1977
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE - LIMITATION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 TO REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 8 (2) OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION ACT, 1948 - VALIDITY OF REFERENCE - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO EXAMINE.
Fact of the Case:
In this case, a considerable portion of land lying in the town of Siliguri was acquired by the Government under Act II of 1948. The respondents filed applications under section 8 (a) of Act II of 1948 read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming compensation for the acquired land. The Collector made references to the Court for determination of compensation. The State Government challenged the validity of the references on the ground that they were barred by limitation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the reference made in the three appeals were barred by limitation. The Court found that the notice of award under section 12 (2) dated 5th February, 1951 was served on 6th February, 1951 and the application for reference was made on 7th September, 1951. In so far as F. A. S. Nos. 338-39 of 1958 are concerned, the notice having been served on 6th February, 1951, the application for reference should have been made before the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of service of notice under section 18 (2) (b) of the Act. Similarly in F. A. No. 340 of 1958 notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was served on 6th February, 1951 and the application for reference was filed before the Collector on 27th June, 1951 beyond 6 weeks from the date of the service.
Issues: 1. Whether the reference made in the three appeals were barred by limitation? 2. Whether the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply to reference under section 8 (2) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948? 3. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reference made in the three appeals were barred by limitation. The Court found that the notice of award under section 12 (2) dated 5th February, 1951 was served on 6th February, 1951 and the application for reference was made on 7th September, 1951. In so far as F. A. S. Nos. 338-39 of 1958 are concerned, the notice having been served on 6th February, 1951, the application for reference should have been made before the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of service of notice under section 18 (2) (b) of the Act. Similarly in F. A. No. 340 of 1958 notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was served on 6th February, 1951 and the application for reference was filed before the Collector on 27th June, 1951 beyond 6 weeks from the date of the service. 2. The Court held that the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply to reference under section 8 (2) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948. The Court found that section 8 (2) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 provides that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any reference made to the Court under sub-section (1). The Court held that this provision makes it clear that the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the proviso which attracts section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, will also apply in a matter of reference tinder section 8 of Act II of 1948. 3. The Court held that the Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reference. The Court found that the Collector has a power to make the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that if the Collector exercises such jurisdiction which is contrary to the condition and restriction laid down in the section, the Courts have every power to strike down the reference as ultra vires.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Land Acquisition Judge. The Court also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the respondents.
1. THIS appeal at the instance of the State Government arises out of an application under section 8 (a) of Act II of 1948 read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent had filed cross-objection in all these appeals. Ramkali bhattacharjee (Appeal No. 338 of 1958), Rampada Chatterjee (Appeal no. 339 of 1958) and Jatindra Nath sarkar (Appeal No. 340 of 1958) being aggrieved by the award of compensation made application under section 8 (a) of Act II of 1948 read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claim for compensation arose in this case for the purpose of Assam Rail link Project. A considerable portion of land lying in the town of Siliguri was acquired by the Government under Act II of 1948. In appeal No. 338 of 1958, 1. 98 acres of Rupni land was acquired. The award has been made in respect thereof to the extent of rs. 5, 900/ -. Notice of award under section 12 (2) of Act I of 1894 was served on Ramkali Bhattacharjee on 6th february, 1951. Application under section 8 (a) of the Act for reference was filed on 7th September, 1951. claiming the value of the land at the rate of not less than Rs. 2000/- per cottah. In appeal No. 339 of 1958 the notice under section 12 (ii) of the Land acquisition Act was served on 6th february, 1951 and the reference was filed on 7th September, 1951. In so far as the F. A. 340 of 1958 is concerned it appears that the notice was served. on 6th February, 1951 and the reference was filed on 17th June, 1951.
2. MR Chakraborty on behalf of the appellants contended that the order of the learned Collector sending the reference is prima facie illegal as the reference was clearly out of time under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that the condition precedent for making the reference is to be found in section 18 of the Act. If it is found that the reference is Out of time the learned Collector has no jurisdiction to make the reference and the reference is void ab-initio. Mr. Gupta however contended that once the reference is made the authority hearing the reference cannot hold that the reference is not maintainable. Once, it is argued, the reference is made the question of limitation cannot be decided by the Civil Court. Alternatively Mr. Gupta argued that if no reference is made by the Land Acquisition Collector or a wrong reference is made by the said Collector there is no remedy to the aggrieved party and as such the order of reference by the Land Acquisition Collector is an administrative order and cannot be corrected by the High Court before the Constitution came into force even if the reference is illegal. Mr. Gupta further argued that under Act II of 1948 there is no provision of notice as contained in section 12 (2) of the Land acquisition Act. If there is no provision in section 7 or 8 (2), the question of Limitation does not arise in a matter of reference under the said Act.
3. THE point for decision is therefore whether the reference is competent in view of the bar of limitation as contained in section 18 of the Land acquisition Act and (2) whether an application for reference under section 8 (2) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 the provision regarding limitation under act I of 1894 applies. It must be stated that on the point, whether the limitation under section 18 of the Act applies, there was a divergence of opinion between the different High Courts, Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the cases reported in 41 C. W. N., 1291 66 C. L. J., 134, (Anantaram v. Secy, of State) and a. I. R. 1944 Bom., 200 in support of his contention. Mr. Gupta however relied upon the cases reported in A. I. R. 1929 all., 769 (Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad) A. I. R. 1932 All., 597; a. I. R. 1943 Mad., 327 (Venkatesawraswami v. Sub-Collector), a. I. R. 1963 All, 556, A. I. R. 1958 Pan., 490 (Hari Krishan v. Stale of Pepsu) and A. I. R. 1967 Himachal Pradesh, 26 (L. A. Collector v. Janki Dass) in support of hi
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
