Civil Revision Application No.81 of 2016,Civil Revision Application No.82 of 2016

29th January, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri SHRIKANT SAOJI
Respondent Counsel: Ms. GEETA TIWARI, Shri M.A. KADU

Cases Cited:
Shankar s/o Govindrao Deulkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 633 [Para 4,5,6,8,9]
Imratlal and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2014) 14 SCC 133 [Para 6,9]
Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and anr. Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal Etc., 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 609 [Para 7,9]
Damodaran Pillai and ors. Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., 2005(5) ALL MR 961 (S.C.)=(2005) 7 SCC 300 [Para 7]
Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun K. Roy and ors., (2004) 1 SCC 347 [Para 9]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The land of the applicants came to be acquired pursuant to proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act). The award came to be passed on 10/05/2004. The applicants not being satisfied with the amount of compensation filed proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act on 07/08/2004. The reference proceedings came to be dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. This order is under challenge in these civil revision applications.

2. Shri S. Saoji, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that an identical challenge was raised in Civil Revision Application No.84/2016 and this Court by judgment dated 17/07/2017 though held that the order refusing to condone delay by the Reference Court was legally correct, the proceedings are remanded to the reference Court for deciding the same afresh with the condition that the claimant would not be entitled for interest from the date of the award till the date of decision of civil revision application. It is further submitted that notice calling upon the applicants to collect the amount of compensation was received on 02/08/2004 and therefore the reference proceedings were filed within limitation. It was submitted that no written statement was filed by the non-applicants and therefore the reference Court committed an error in treating the proceedings to be barred by limitation.

3. Ms Geeta Tiwari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned counsel for non-applicant No.3 opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to them if the reference proceedings are barred by limitation, there is no power with the reference Court or this Court to condone the delay. It was further submitted that the applicant in his deposition admitted that the notice was received on 21/06/2004 and therefore the reference proceedings were barred by limitation. It was not the case of the applicants that the copy of the award was not forwarded along with said notice. It is therefore submitted that the revision applications deserve to be dismissed.

4. Heard the respective counsel. The reference Court has recorded a finding that the applicant in his cross-examination admitted that notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was received on 21/06/2004. On that premise it was held that proceedings filed under Section 18 of the said Act were beyond time. In the application for reference it is not the case that a copy of the award was not supplied to the applicant along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the said Act. This fact has also been noted and considered in Shankar s/o Govindrao Deulkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 633. On that count I do not find that the reference Court committed any error in dismissing the reference proceedings.

5. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the reference proceedings be directed to be decided on merits by requiring the applicants to give up interest from the date of the award till today. Such course was followed in Shankar s/o Govindrao Deulkar (supra).

6. Perusal of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment in Shankar Govindrao Deulkar (supra) indicates that the order of the Reference Court dismissing the reference as being barred by limitation has been upheld. Thereafter, in view of the judgment in Imratlal and ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2014) 14 SCC 133 a direction has been issued to decide the reference proceedings on merits subject to the claimant not being entitled for interest on the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court. The question therefore is after finding the reference proceedings to be barred by limitation whether the reference Court can be directed to decide the same under Section 18 of the said Act.

7. The issue as to whether the Collector acts as a statutory authority or as a "Court" while making a reference under Section 18(1) of the said Act was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and anr. vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal Etc. 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 609. Holding that the Collector does not act as a "Court" while making a reference under Section 18(1) of the said Act it observed in paragraphs 9 and 18 as under :

"9. It would thus be clear that one of the conditions precedent to make a valid reference to the court is that the application under Section 18(1) shall be in writing and made within six weeks from the date of the award when the applicant was present either in person or through counsel, at the time of making of the award by the Collector under clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (2).

18. Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1). Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18....."

Thus from the aforesaid decision it is clear that for the purposes of making a valid reference the application under Section 18(1) of the said Act should be made within the time prescribed. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied for extending the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to Section 18(2) of the said Act. When the period for making a reference cannot be extended by the Collector and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be resorted to, it is obvious that even the Court cannot extend that period. In other words the delay in filing the reference proceedings cannot be condoned. If the delay in filing reference proceedings cannot be condoned, it is obvious that the Reference Court would not have any jurisdiction to consider any reference that is time barred. In Damodaran Pillai and ors. vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 300 : [2005(5) ALL MR 961 (S.C.)], it has been held that in the absence of applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Court cannot invoke any inherent power. In such situation, hardship or injustice cannot be a ground for extending the period of limitation.

8. The directions issued in Shankar Govindrao Deulkar (supra) by which the Reference Court has been called upon to decide the reference proceedings despite the same being barred by limitation amounts to conferring jurisdiction on the Reference Court which it does not possess. It would amount to doing something indirectly that which cannot be done directly. Hence the direction to the Reference Court to entertain the time barred reference proceedings as issued in the aforesaid decision cannot be followed being contrary to the law referred to above.

9. In Imratlal and ors. (supra) the question was with regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the said Act. It cannot be disputed that for the purposes of condoning delay for filing appeal under Section 54 of the said Act the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable. However, when the delay in filing the reference proceedings cannot be condoned, there would be no question of directing the Reference Court to decide a belated reference by requiring the applicant to forgo the amount of statutory interest.

The Honourable Supreme Court in Government of W.B. vs. Tarun K. Roy and ors., (2004) 1 SCC 347 has observed that an order passed in ignorance of an earlier binding precedent by itself would not constitute a binding precedent and can be held to have been rendered per incuriam. With respect, the directions issued in Shankar Govindrao Deulkar to the Reference Court to entertain the reference proceedings despite the same being barred by limitation are against the ratio of the decision in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and anr. (supra). For said reason the directions to that effect in Shankar Govindrao Deulkar (supra) cannot be followed.

10. As the reference proceedings have been found to be barred by limitation there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Reference Court. Civil Revision Applications are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Applications dismissed.