2002 Supreme(Raj) 1346
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajesh Balia, O.P.Bishnoi, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal And Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 9 of 1999.
Decided On : 18-02-2002
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. N.M. Lodha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate.
Headnote:
A. Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, Section 18 - Constitution of India 1950, Article 225 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 54 - Appeal under Section 18 of Ordinance of 1949 against judgment and decree passed by Single Judge in appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act - Held, that though an appeal is provided directly to the Supreme Court from judgment and decree passed by High Court in appeal under Section 54, it does not exclude specifically or by necessary implication any intra-court appeal - Decree passed by single judge of high Court is as much decree passed by high Court as a decree passed by Division Bench - Therefore, filing of appeal intra-Court within the High Court as per specific provisions contained in Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 were was existing prior to commencement of Constitution under Article 225 is maintainable in absence of any such prohibition under Section 54 of Limitation Act, express or by necessary implication.
B. Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Delay of 83 days in filing appeal by Union of India under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act - Application for condonation of delay - Ground of - Want to knowledge of proceedings and award and time consumed in arranging court fee of Rs. 70,000/- - Ground of want of knowledge is factually incorrect - Other contention about time requisite for arranging court fee to be paid on appeal by UOI cannot comment itself as a cause of delay in filing appeal - Held, Single Judge rightly refused condonation of delay.
C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11 & 18 - Compensation for land ,under acquisition-Entry made at time of settlement about the nature of land does not reflect true or correct position existing on relevant date-Land in question, though entered as unirrigated in settlement record but being irrigated as command land from canal system since long and prior to notification u/s 4-Held, court was right in awarding compensation on the basis of market value of irrigated land.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1999 rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar, in Civil Reference No. 155/93 Brijlal, Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., on 2nd April, 1998 .
3. The controversy arose in the following facts and circumstances. By a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Govt. of Rajasthan on 29th September, 1989 made known its intention to acquire 5044 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which included the land of the respondents, which is situated in Ganganagar District. The land is sought to be acquired for Union of India. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6(4) and direction under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 were issued on 27th March, 1990. In pursuance of which the said land was acquired. Amongst the land so acquire the respondents-claimants had 50 Bighas of land situated in Chuck 6 SGM. However, it appears that as a result of reorganisation of chaks said land came to be situated partly in Chak 8 SHPDA and partly in Chak 10 SHPDA.
4. Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the claimants, Brijlal and Prabhu Dayal, persons jointly interested in land, at the rate of Rs. 9,500 per Bigha, by treating the land as Barani (unirrigated) or in other words cultivation depends on rain water only as per the nature of land recorded in the land records as per soil classification. However, the claimants were not satisfied with the award of compensation by treating the land in question as Barani. According to them, land was irrigated one through irrigated work. For such irrigated lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation by taking the market price at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per Bigha. The said respondents, therefore, made an application for submitting reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Said application was allowed. In the land acquisition reference case State of Rajasthan through Collector, Sriganganagar, the Land Acquisition Officer, Surat, Distt. Sriganganagar and Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi, were impleaded as parties.
5. We may notice that initially Govt. U.O.I. was impleaded through Land Acquisition Officer as a party, but later on the description was corrected as UOI through Secretary, Department of Defence. Shri Kashi Ram, Advocate, appeared for the claimants, whereas Shri Gauri Shanker Gupta, Govt. Advocate, appeared for all the respondents. No evidence was led on the nature of the land/soil by the respondents before the Reference Court though the claimants have led the evidence, oral as well as documentary, to show that though the land was recorded as Barani land in the land records, since 1972-1973 the land in question was brought under command area and was since then irrigated land. The Irrigation Deptt. has issued water slips for irrigating the land in question. Such water slips were produced before the Court. The claimants also examined, apart from producing water slips, land holders of neighbouring land to prove that the land in question was in fact being subjected to irrigation through the irrigation work as a command area through an established system of irrigation under the control of Irrigation Deptt. of the State of Rajasthan. The supply of water from any irrigation and drainage work in Rajasthan is regulated under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act.
6. learned Counsel for all the non-applicants, opposite parties, raised a preliminary objection before the Civil Judge (Senior Div.), that reference was not maintainable as application for submitting reference was not made within limitation. The Court found that no notice under Section 12(2) read with S
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
