State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shri Satinder Bir Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1607 of 1978
Petitioner: State of Punjab & Anr.
Respondent: Shri Satinder Bir Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1607 of 1978
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 22, 1995
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 12(2), 11, 18(2) – Whether the notice issued by Collector under S.12(2) intimating the award made u/s 11 is to contain full details of the award and if so the reference under Section 18 was beyond limitation – Held that it is not necessary that the notice should contain all details of the award and statutory operation of limitation mentioned by S.18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of communication in any particular form – Limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under section 12(2) is received – High Court was clearly in error in holding that notice was not proper and therefore reference u/s 18(2) was not barred – Appeal allowed.
Held:
The question then is whether the notice under Section 12(2) is a valid notice. From a conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 12, it is clear that notice is only an intimation of making of the award requiring the owner or interested person to receive compensation awarded under Section 11. On receipt of the notice, if the interested person receives compensation without pro-test, obviously no reference need be made. The determination of compensation becomes final and binds the parties. When he receives the compensation under protest as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act, the need to make the application for reference under Section 18(1) would arise. At that juncture it will be open to the interested person either to make inspec-tion of the award which was conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 12, or seek a certified copy of the award from the Collector and the cont-ents. Thereon he could make necessary objection for the determination inter alia, of compensation for the land. It is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including his consideration and its manner of determi-nation of the compensation as opined by the learned Judge of the High Court.
The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by Section 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under Section 12(2) is received or as envis-aged by Section 18 (2). (Para 6)
The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The area acquired was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain all the details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has been determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limitation did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of the notice and thereby the rejection of the application was not legal. (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated April 25, 1977 made in Civil Revision Application No.512/73. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the controversy. They are:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the State Gazette on 15.1.1970 acquiring 40 kanals 17 marlas of land situated in Mohali Village, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar in Punjab for public purpose. The Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 1.8.1970. He issued notice under Section 12(2) and it was received by the respondent on 22.9.1970. He appeared and received compensation under pro-test on 29.9.1970. Thereafter, he made an application under Section 18 on 21.1.1971 seeking reference to the Civil Court. The Collector by his proceedings dated 12.1.1973 had re-jected the application as being barred by limitation. Calling in question the order, the respondent filed revision in the High Court under s.115 as provided under the local Amendment Act, 1954 by sub-s.(3) of s.18 of the Act. The High Court allowed the revision holding that though the respondent had received the notice on September 22, 1970, the notice did not contain all the details as to how market value of the land was evaluated; the respondent was not in a position to know the determina-tion of the compensation for making an application for refer-ence under s.18. Therefore, it is not a proper notice and the limitation prescribed under s.18(2) has no application.
2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that the notice issued under s.12(2) should contain all the details of the award. Section 11 of the Act contemplates that while making the award the Collector needs to determine (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
3. Section 12 provides that the award shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall, except as provided in the Act, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Sub-s.(2) of s.12 mandates that the Collector “shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made”.
4. Section 18 of the Act gives right to the owner or interested person who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
Sub-s.(2) of s.18 is relevant which reads thus:
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made, –
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under s.12, sub-s.(2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.
5. It would thus be clear that the interested person who had received the compensation under protest is required to state in his application for reference the grounds on which he objects to the compensation awarded by the Collector, within six weeks from the date of the award when either he was present or was represented by a counsel or agent, or within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice from the Collector sent under Section 12(2), or within six months from the date of the award made by the Collector whichever period should first expire. In this case since the respondent had admittedly received the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) on September 22, 1970, by operation of first part of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the respondent was enjoined to make the application under s.18 within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice. Since admittedly, he did not make the application within six weeks, it was barred by limitation.
6. The question then is whether the notice under Section 12(2) is a valid notice. From a conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 12, it is clear that notice is only an intimation of making of the award requiring the owner or interested person to receive compensation awarded under Section 11. On receipt of the notice, if the interested person receives compensation without pro-test, obviously no reference need be made. The determination of compensation becomes final and binds the parties. When he receives the compensation under protest as contemplated under s.31 of the Act, the need to make the application for reference under s.18(1) would arise. At that juncture it will be open to the interested person either to make inspection of the award which was conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub-s.(1) of s.12, or seek a certified copy of the award from the Collector and the contents. Thereon he could make neces-sary objection for the determination inter alia, of compensa-tion for the land. It is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including his consideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as opined by the learned Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent that the interested person should immediately make the refer-ence application on his receiving compensation under s.31. In other words receipt of the amount and making the reference application are not simultaneous. The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by s.18(2) does not depend on the minis-terial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limi-tation begins to operate from the moment the notice under s.12(2) is received or as envisaged by s.18 (2).
7. The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The area acquired was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain all the details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has been determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limitation did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of the notice and thereby the rejection of the application was not legal.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. But unfortunately, in the circumstances, the respondent lost his right of reference and we are helpless. No costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated April 25, 1977 made in Civil Revision Application No.512/73. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the controversy. They are:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the State Gazette on 15.1.1970 acquiring 40 kanals 17 marlas of land situated in Mohali Village, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar in Punjab for public purpose. The Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 1.8.1970. He issued notice under Section 12(2) and it was received by the respondent on 22.9.1970. He appeared and received compensation under pro-test on 29.9.1970. Thereafter, he made an application under Section 18 on 21.1.1971 seeking reference to the Civil Court. The Collector by his proceedings dated 12.1.1973 had re-jected the application as being barred by limitation. Calling in question the order, the respondent filed revision in the High Court under s.115 as provided under the local Amendment Act, 1954 by sub-s.(3) of s.18 of the Act. The High Court allowed the revision holding that though the respondent had received the notice on September 22, 1970, the notice did not contain all the details as to how market value of the land was evaluated; the respondent was not in a position to know the determina-tion of the compensation for making an application for refer-ence under s.18. Therefore, it is not a proper notice and the limitation prescribed under s.18(2) has no application.
2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that the notice issued under s.12(2) should contain all the details of the award. Section 11 of the Act contemplates that while making the award the Collector needs to determine (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
3. Section 12 provides that the award shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall, except as provided in the Act, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Sub-s.(2) of s.12 mandates that the Collector “shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made”.
4. Section 18 of the Act gives right to the owner or interested person who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
Sub-s.(2) of s.18 is relevant which reads thus:
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made, –
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under s.12, sub-s.(2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.
5. It would thus be clear that the interested person who had received the compensation under protest is required to state in his application for reference the grounds on which he objects to the compensation awarded by the Collector, within six weeks from the date of the award when either he was present or was represented by a counsel or agent, or within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice from the Collector sent under Section 12(2), or within six months from the date of the award made by the Collector whichever period should first expire. In this case since the respondent had admittedly received the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) on September 22, 1970, by operation of first part of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the respondent was enjoined to make the application under s.18 within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice. Since admittedly, he did not make the application within six weeks, it was barred by limitation.
6. The question then is whether the notice under Section 12(2) is a valid notice. From a conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 12, it is clear that notice is only an intimation of making of the award requiring the owner or interested person to receive compensation awarded under Section 11. On receipt of the notice, if the interested person receives compensation without pro-test, obviously no reference need be made. The determination of compensation becomes final and binds the parties. When he receives the compensation under protest as contemplated under s.31 of the Act, the need to make the application for reference under s.18(1) would arise. At that juncture it will be open to the interested person either to make inspection of the award which was conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub-s.(1) of s.12, or seek a certified copy of the award from the Collector and the contents. Thereon he could make neces-sary objection for the determination inter alia, of compensa-tion for the land. It is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including his consideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as opined by the learned Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent that the interested person should immediately make the refer-ence application on his receiving compensation under s.31. In other words receipt of the amount and making the reference application are not simultaneous. The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by s.18(2) does not depend on the minis-terial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limi-tation begins to operate from the moment the notice under s.12(2) is received or as envisaged by s.18 (2).
7. The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The area acquired was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain all the details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has been determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limitation did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of the notice and thereby the rejection of the application was not legal.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. But unfortunately, in the circumstances, the respondent lost his right of reference and we are helpless. No costs.
