2008 Supreme(Guj) 96

2008 (3) GCD 2045 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Vora &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
Versus
Sankarji Hemaji & Anr.
First Apppeal No. 790 of 20071—Decided on 13/03/2008

Point in Issue :
Whether reference Court is justified in enhancing amount of compensation after a period of 21 years in the facts of the case ?

Headnote:Head Note :

       (a) Land Acquisition Act — Section 35 — Limitation Act — Article 137 — Temporary acquisition — Compensation — Reference for enhancement — Delay — Jurisdiction — Finding of — Land was temporarily acquired for ONGC in year 1980 and compensation was paid without any objection on the part of claimants the land owners — ONGC also enhanced the amount of compensation/rent at intervals of every three years which was also accepted by claimants without raising any objection — Even thereafter making application for reference by claimants after a period of twenty one years raising the dispute as to sufficiency of compensation is barred by limitation — It is true that no limitation is prescribed for making application for reference but that does not mean application can be made at any time even after twenty one years of determination of compensation — Court held that on ground of delay and laches the reference applications were not maintainable.

       Held :

       The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 35 of the Act as back as on 11.08.1980 determining the compensation/rent at the rate of 0.35 paise per sq.mtr. per annum which was never objected to by the original land owners / interested persons, but the same came to be accepted without raising any objection and still the respondents herein - original claimants submitted the applications for making reference to the reference Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 i.e. after a period of 21 years raising the dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation which was determined while declaring award on 11.08.1980. It is the contention on behalf of the original claimants that as under Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act on 11.08.2008, no time limit is prescribed and as it is the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference Court and as the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, the application submitted by the claimants are within the period of limitation and/or not barred by delay and laches. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that when there is no limitation prescribed, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would come in picture and within three years from the date of cause of action, the applications could have been made. It is true that under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. However, that does not mean that the application for reference can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided, three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years, an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings.

       The reference Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 35 of the Act. While considering the submissions with regard to the limitation, the reference Court has held that as the entire land acquisition proceedings and the award are null and void, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (reference Court has considered Section 137 of the Limitation Act wrongly) would not be applicable, more particularly when the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, making the reference to the reference Court as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act. As stated above, such a findings and the observations of the reference Court are perverse and illegal. As held by us, there was no dispute with regard to sufficiency of the possession raised by the claimants at the relevant time when the award was declared, therefore, there was no occasion for the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference Court and we have also held that the reference applications are not maintainable. Even otherwise, assuming that it was the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference Court and when the Collector failed to perform his duty, in that case also, the claimants are required to initiate appropriate proceedings within reasonable time, as there is no time limit prescribed under the Act. Certainly the claimants cannot submit the applications and/or raise the dispute after a period of 21 years. Thus, on the ground of delay and laches the reference applications were not maintainable. As such when the applications were submitted after a period of 21 years raising dispute with regard to adequacy of the compensation awarded in the year 1980, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ought not to have referred the dispute to the reference Court. As such the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed an error and/or acted arbitrarily in referring the dispute to the reference Court after a period of 21 years. [Para 25]

       Head Note :

       (b) Land Acquisition Act — Section 35(3) — Reference Court — declaring unauthorised and illegal possession of acquiring body — Jurisdiction — Finding of — The reference Court has erroneously held that acquiring body is in unauthorised and illegal possession and are trespassers — The finding is perverse and without authority under the law and even beyond the reference or the dispute referred to it — In a reference under the Act reference Court has no jurisdiction or authority to decide any other dispute other than dispute as to the sufficiency of compensation — The reference Court is not vested with any other power — It cannot restore possession of the land to original land owners in a reference — Finding of reference Court in this regard is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

       Held :

       The findings of the reference Court which are reproduced hereinabove with regard to acquisition proceedings and award being null and void and illegal and ONGC - acquiring body is in unauthorised and illegal possession and are trespassers, all such findings are wholly without jurisdiction and perverse and without authority under the law and even beyond the reference and/or the dispute referred to the reference Court. In a reference under Section 35 of the Act, reference Court has no jurisdiction and/or authority under the law to decide any other dispute/question other than the dispute as to the sufficiency of the compensation and that too with respect to only such difference as to the sufficiency of compensation which has arisen between the Collector and the persons interested at the relevant time. The reference Court is not vested with any other powers to declare the acquisition proceedings and/or award null and void and/or illegal and/or give a finding whether the acquiring body is in illegal possession and/or trespasser. Similarly, the reference Court also has no jurisdiction and/or authority under the law to restore possession of the land to the original land owners in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. [Para 33]

       Head Note :

        (c) Land Acquisition Act — Section 35 — Compensation — Sufficiency of — Determination — Jurisdiction — Finding of — Court held that the reference Court in temporary acquisition has no jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of compensation for retention of the land beyond the period of three years — In other way Collector in a reference has power — In the case order passed awarding compensation beyond period of three years in a reference is wholly without jurisdiction.

       Held :

       the reference Court, in temporary acquisition under Section 35 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of compensation for retention of the land beyond the period of three years. In other-way, the Collector in a reference under Section 35 has power to determine sufficiency of compensation only for retention of land upto a maximum period of three years and recourse to possession after the stipulated period can be sought only by remedy provided under common law. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid two decisions. Thus, even the order passed by the reference Court awarding compensation beyond the period of three years in a reference under Section 35 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. In the present case, even the question may arise whether in view of the periodical rise given by ONGC at the interval of every three years, which have been accepted by the claimants without raising any objection, whether the claimants are entitled to raise dispute with regard to sufficiency of compensation/rent. [Para 37]

       Law Laid Down :

       Reference Court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with regard to sufficiency of compensation beyond the period of three years from date of taking possession.

       Case Law Analysis :

       State of Karnataka vs. Laxuman, 2005 (8) SCC 709 [Para 7];; The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, 1976 (4) SCC 634 [Para 7];; Bayer Aktiengesellschft of Leverkusen Federal Republic of Germany vs. Controller of Patents, Government of India, AIR 1982 Cal. 30 [Para 7];; State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha & Ors., 1969 (2) SCC 187 [Para 7];; Meher Rusi Dalal vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 (7) SCC 362 [Para 7];; Balram Chandra vs. State of U.P., 1995 (3) SCC 723 [Para 9];; P.K. Sreekantan & Ors. vs. V.P. Sree Kumaran Nair & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 516 [Para 9];; Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr., 2003 (5) SCC 561 [Para 9];; Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2007 (2) GLH 272 [Para 9];; Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Pandya Prahladbhai Manilal & Ors., 2006 (3) GLH 662 [Para 9];; Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Thakoredas, 1997 (11) SCC 4l2 [Para 26]—Relied on

       Appeal Allowed