Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3430 OF 2012

(arising out of SLP (C) No.34815/2011)

Premji Nathu

… Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat and another

… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1.

Whether the application submitted by the appellant under Section 18(1)

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was barred by time and

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh (hereinafter described as the

‘Reference Court’) rightly refused to entertain his prayer for enhancement of

the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment

dated 16.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court.

2.

The appellant’s land was acquired by the State Government along with

other parcels of land for implementation of Mendarda – Amrapur Road

Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 4.3.1982 and the

declaration under Section 6(1) was published on 7.10.1982. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation at the rate of

Rs.110/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/- per Are for non-irrigated land.

3.

After passing of the award, the Collector issued notice to the appellant

under Section 12(2), which was received by him on 22.2.1985. Similar notices

were received by the other landowners on 22.2.1985 and 23.2.1985. As the

copy of the award was not annexed with the notice, the appellant obtained

certified copy thereof through his Advocate and then submitted an application

dated 8.4.1985 to the Collector for making a reference to the Court for award of

higher compensation with solatium and interest. The reference made by the

Collector in the appellant’s case was registered as LR Case No.1/2000. The

references made at the instance of the other landowners were registered as LR

Cases Nos.2/2000 to 15/2000. In their claim petitions, the appellant and other

landowners pleaded that their land had irrigation facilities; that they were taking

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

crops of groundnut, wheat, fodder etc. and they are entitled to compensation at

the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are. In the reply filed on behalf of the State

Government, it was pleaded that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had

correctly fixed market value of the acquired land after taking into consideration

the location, type and fertility of the acquired land. It was also pleaded that the

landowners are not entitled to higher compensation because they had accepted

the award without any protest.

4.

It is not clear from the record whether in the reply filed on behalf of the

State Government, an objection was taken to the maintainability of the

applications filed by the appellant and other landowners on the ground that the

same were barred by time but the Reference Court did frame an issue in that

regard. This is evident from the tenor of the issues framed by the Reference

Court, which are extracted below:

“ 1)

Whether applicant proves that the compensation

awarded

is

inadequate ? How much ?

2)

What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled to ?

3)

Whether this application is in time ?

4)

Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this reference

case ?

5)

Whether this reference case is barred by S. 25 of L.A.

Act. ?

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

6)

Whether the applicants have accepted the awarded

amount without raising any objection ? If

yes, what is the

effect ?

7)

Whether the applicant is entitled to get the amount of

solatium & interest?

8)

What order ?”

5.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the

parties, the Reference Court concluded that the landowners are entitled to

Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land

with an additional amount of Rs.2 per square meter, but declined relief to