Civil Revision Application No.89 of 2004

14th October, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. K. S. BHORE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. VAISHALI A. SHINDE

Cases Cited:
Bhagwan Das Vs. State of U.P., 2010 ALL SCR 778=2010 STPL (Web) 149 (S.C.) [Para 3,5,6]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This Revision application is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by Special Acquisition Officer thereby rejecting the reference filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the References are not filed within the period of limitation.

2. The lands belonging to the petitioners have been acquired by the respondent authorities on 13.11.2000 for the public purpose of construction of Urdhav Pravara right canal and they have passed the award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2003 and the compensations were paid to the them on 10.12.2003. On 9.12.2003, the petitioners have received the copy of contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have filed References under Section 18 and the petitioner No.9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer on 9.2.2004 has rejected the References filed by the petitioners under Section 18 on the ground that the said References are not within a period of limitation. Hence, this revision application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the notices have been received by the petitioners under Section 12(2) on 27.10.2003 and on 9.12.2003 the petitioners received the copy of contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have filed References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner No.9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004. According to the counsel for the petitioners, since they have received copy of contents of the award on 9.12.2003, the Reference filed by them was well within limitation, and therefore, the Special land Acquisition Officer should not have rejected the Reference. In support of his contention he invited my attention to the documents placed on record and submitted that the concerned Talathi has submitted his report on 30.10.2003, which indicates that though notices were issued on 13.10.2003, the same have been served on the petitioners on 27.10.2003. The petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003. Therefore, immediately thereafter on 9.12.2003 Reference has been filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and the petitioner No.9 has filed the reference on 6.2.2004. Therefore, the References are not barred by limitation. Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Exh.1 to the revision application and also invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have received the notices on 27.10.2003 and they have received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003. Learned counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Reported in 2010 STPL (Web) 149 (S.C.) : [2010 ALL SCR 778], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show the knowledge on the part of the claimants/appellants, the claim of the appellants that they become aware that the award was made only when the notice was tendered to them and they become aware of the contents of the award on the subsequent dates has to be accepted.

In short, in the present case though the notices are issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.10.2003, the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have received it on 27.10.2010 and they received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003, and from the said date the limitation, started and the petitioners were taken steps to file their reference within limitation and accordingly they have filed the references on 9.12.2003 on which date they received the contents of the award. In so far as the petitioner No.9 is concerned, he has filed the reference on 6.2.2004.

4. Learned A.G.P vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that since the reference was not within limitation, the Special Land Acquisition has rightly rejected the same therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. I have also perused the contents in the revision application and the annexures thereto. There is no reply filed by the respondents to this revision application and in that sense the pleadings in the Revision Application remained uncontroverted. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have received the copy of contention of award on 9.12.2003 and on the same day they have filed the Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in so far as petitioner No.9 is concerned he had filed the said Reference on 6.2.2004. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others [2010 ALL SCR 778] (supra) in para 14 held thus :-

"A vague endorsement that the person who had to serve the notice went to village and informed the farmers, is not the same as notice being specifically tendered to the person concerned. The endorsement-cum-report does not mention or identify the farmers to whom he spoke or which of them refused to put their signatures. In the absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of the appellants that they became aware that an award was made only when the notice dated 25.10.2007 was tendered to them and they became aware of the contents of the award only on 16.11.2007 has to be accepted. In the circumstances, the date of the award should be taken as 16.11.2007. The application filed on 16.11.2007 was therefore, in time. The land 18 Acquisition Collector ought to have entertained the application seeking reference. The High court, instead of directing the Collector to make a reference, wrongly rejected the writ petition on the ground that an appeal is maintainable under section 54 of the Act and also wrongly rejected the review petition on the ground that they could have made an application for condonation of delay before the Land Acquisition Collector."

6. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have received copy of the contents of the award on 9.12.2003 and on the very same day they have filed the reference under Section 18, the reference filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 was within the period of limitation. This view is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others [2010 ALL SCR 778] (Supra).

7. However, in case of petitioner No.9, though he has received the copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003, the reference was filed by him on 6.2.2004 and the same was time barred. Therefore, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has rightly rejected the same reference of petitioner No.9.

8. In the result, Civil Revision Application succeeds in so far as the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 are concerned. The same stands rejected in so far as the petitioner No.9 is concerned. The References filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3 Ahmednagar are restored to its original position. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Ahmednagar is directed to forward the said Reference to the Reference court. The impugned order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Ahmednagar is quashed and set aside so far as petitioner Nos.1 to 8 are concerned. He is directed to forward the references of the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 to the Reference court. Rule made absolute to the above extent.

9. Civil Revision Application is partly allowed to the extent of above. The Revision application is rejected in so far as the petitioner No.9 is concerned.

10. It is needless to mention that the petitioner No.9 can take appropriate remedy as available in law and dismissal of this Civil Revision Application qua him is no hurdle to do so.

Application partly allowed.