Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9004 OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.19053/2022)
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others …Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Collector & Special Land
Acquisition Officer & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 492/2022, by which the High
Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein
and has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Reference
Court, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) as barred by
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.12.12
16:57:12 IST
Reason:
limitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
1
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That a notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to be
issued for acquiring the lands in question for the construction of Gas
Compressor Station and necessary facilities under the Reliance Gas
Transportation, Surat on 30.07.2008. Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act 1894 was issued on 1.6.2009. The Land Acquisition
Officer/Collector declared the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894
awarding compensation @ Rs. 69/- per square meter, vide award dated
6.4.2011. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 with a copy of the
award was issued to the landowners/appellants on 25.04.2011. The
appellants filed Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012 before the High
Court challenging notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 as
well as award dated 6.4.2011. The Division Bench of the High Court vide
judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 dismissed the said writ petition.
However, while dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench reserved
liberty with the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to
them for enhancement of the compensation or any other relief to which
they may be legally entitled.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 7.8.2012 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the
appellants approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. CC 7382/2013. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 dismissed
2
the special leave petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
That thereafter considering the liberty reserved in favour of the
appellants reserved by the High Court while dismissing writ petition No.
1428/2012, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act,
1894. The Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by
limitation, having been filed beyond the period specified in Section 18(2)
of the Act, 1894. The appellants preferred First Appeal No. 492/2022
before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has dismissed the said first appeal by observing that the
Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference as barred by
limitation. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is the subject matter of the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
and more particularly when the appellants challenged the acquisition
proceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the special
leave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the date
of dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed reference
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to have
entertained the same and ought to have considered the reference on
merits.
3
3.1 It is submitted that as such while dismissing Writ Petition No.
1428/2012, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically reserved
liberty in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be
available to them for enhancement of compensation and thereafter when
the appellants filed reference for enhancement of the compensation, the
same could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
3.2 It is submitted that therefore in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the time taken by the
appellants in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court and
thereafter before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings is
required to be excluded.
3.3 It is submitted that the valuable lands of the appellants have been
acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and the
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 69/- per square
meter only. It is submitted that the lands acquired have been situated in
Surat and were very valuable lands. It is submitted that the landowners
are entitled to just compensation for the acquired lands.
3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shyam Divan,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
4
4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 3 has vehemently submitted that the time limit to file
reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of the
compensation would be six months from the date of receipt of the award
under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that in the present
case the appellants were served notice under Section 12(2) of the Act
with a copy of the award on 25.4.2011. It is submitted that therefore the
period of six months for making reference expired on 6.10.2011. It is
submitted that therefore the Reference Court rightly dismissed the
reference as barred by limitation.
4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that even otherwise while
preferring Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012, the appellants did
challenge the award also contending inter alia that the amount of
compensation awarded is on a lower side. It is submitted that while
dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench specifically observed that
the objections raised by the appellants before making of the award were
mainly related to the amount of compensation and they are not stated to
have applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading to the
inference that either they were satisfied with the award of compensation
or have missed the time limit for applying for reference under Section 18
of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that the Division Bench has further
5
observed that therefore the petition and the prayers made therein are
found to be an afterthought and not a bona fide grievance about any
injustice. It is submitted that therefore also no interference of this Court
is called for.
4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) &
Another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others, (1996) 9 SCC 414 and
Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2005) 7
SCC 440 , it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the state has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court.
6. Heard.
7. The reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has been
dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of
six months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has
been confirmed by the High Court. However, it is required to be noted
that the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged
the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) of
the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition by
this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The reference applications were
filed on 1.7.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in
6
the writ petition being SCA No. 1428/2012, the award under Section
12(2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of the
amount of compensation and though the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the said writ petition, however thereafter reserved
liberty in favour of the appellants – original landowners to pursue such
remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation
or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that
liberty, the appellants – original landowners thereafter and after
dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court filed reference.
Therefore, in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of
the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for
enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have
been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act,
1894. Within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the
special leave petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave
petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original
landowners whose valuable lands had been acquired challenged the
acquisition proceedings. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
though in the writ petition before the High Court (in the earlier round of
litigation) they challenged the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and
the High Court observed that it is too late to make any grievance, still the
High Court while dismissing the writ petition reserved liberty in favour of
7
the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the
compensation.
8. As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and order passed
by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late to make the
grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation, those
observations are to be read while considering the prayer of the
appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings. It appears that the
acquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awarded
is inadequate. To that, the observations were made by the High Court
that it is too late to raise such a dispute. Therefore, the High Court ought
to have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissing the
reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the
matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.
9. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court
in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others (supra) and
Mahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any
dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the
limitation for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot
be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be
applicable. However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning
8
the delay in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As
observed hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged
the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special
leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter
pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while
dismissing Writ Petition No. 1428/2012, within a period of six months
from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013,
the original landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of
the Act, 1894. In the aforesaid two decisions before this Court, there
were no such facts. Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions
shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court as well as the order passed by the reference court dismissing the
writ petition/reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 as barred by
limitation are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to
the reference court to decide the reference on merits. We direct the
reference court to finally decide and dispose of the reference within a
period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order.
9
11.The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
DECEMBER 12, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
10