IMPORTANT POINT
Award not signed by Land Acquisition Officer has no legal sanctity.

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.—“What is the legal efficacy of an award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is not signed by the author who meanwhile expires without signing the same is the substantial question of law arising in this appeal.”

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the State. None appears for the respondent no.3 City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO).

2. Facts in brief are that appellant/plaintiff had filed suit for declaration to this effect that defendant no.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Central No.2, Thane) did not pass any award at all and the land in dispute did not vest in the Government. It was also contended that the State Government is not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, relief of injunction of perpetual nature was sought for in the suit along with relief of declaration. Following two relief’s were sought:—

(1) It may be declared as defendant no.2 has not declared award of suit land under Section 11 of the Act (Amended), 1984, it may be declared that the suit property does not vest in the Government as per Section 16 of the Act;

(2) It may be declared that the CID CO Defendant No.3 is not entitled to treat the suit property as lawfully acquired.

3. The State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not file any written statement and were also absent even on the date of hearing. They were marked ex-parte in the suit. It is only defendant no.3CIDCO filed its say cum written statement on the basis of which the learned trial Court framed issues.

4. The CIDCO challenged jurisdiction of the Civil Court on the ground that Notification, on the basis of which award was passed could not be challenged before the Civil Court for want of jurisdiction and it is only Hon’ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction under which it can probe into merit of as well as award. The CIDCO further contended that after passing of the award, notice was issued to the plaintiff to collect the compensation and the possession was also taken over by the authorities through the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It also further contended that the land had already vested in it.

5. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on all counts by answering all the issues against the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1997 was preferred; however, it met with the same fate and the point nos.1 and 2 were answered in negative, i.e., against the appellants by judgment and order dated 10th January, 2001.

6. It is against the decree passed in Civil Appeal No.172 of 1997, this Second Appeal is preferred. The appeal was admitted on 31st March, 2003 on the substantial question of law as reproduced hereinabove.

7. In this case, Notification was issued in the year 1970, notices were issued thereafter in response to which written objections were submitted on behalf of the appellants to the acquisition authorities. Acquisition proceedings started and award came to be settled. The main grievance of the appellant is that in spite of filing application for certified copy of the award, it was not furnished to the appellant and for want of certified copy of the award, plaintiff could not file reference under Section 18 of the Act. Another grievance is that exparte possession could not have been taken under Section 16 of the Act, on the basis of unsigned award which was not executable being nonest.

8. It appears that the concerned Land Acquisition Officer who has dealt with bunch of land acquisition proceedings of the suit land as well as other adjoining lands and awards were also typed and kept ready by him but before awards could be signed by him, he died of sudden cardiac arrest. It appears from the judgment of the appellate Court that in the appeal proceedings, the Government Pleader made a statement before the Court that this event of sudden cardiac arrest and death of the officer concerned was not k