Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
POSHETTY’& ORS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by leave granted by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh under Article 133 of the Constitution arises
from its Full Bench judgment dated February 21, 1991 in Writ
Petition No.12604 of 1987. In this appeal, the only
controversy is: whether service of notice of award passed
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for
short, the Act"] along with its enclosure, is a pre-
condition under subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Act. The
Full Bench of the High Court by judgment dated September 12,
1990 in Writ Petition No.13203 of 1985 and batch held that
service of the award with notice is not necessary. The
learned Judges relying upon the omission of second clause in
proviso to Section 18 (2) of the Act held that it is not
necessary that copy of the award should be served. It is
contended by Shri D. P. Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants that sub-section (2) of Section (2) was
interpreted by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Milap Carriers, Transport Contractor and Commission
Agent, Hyderabad vs. National Insurance Company ltd.,
Hyderabad [AIR 1994 A.P 24]. The Full Bench therefore, was
not right in its construction The controversy is no longer
res integra. This Court in State of Punjab & Anr. vs.
Satinder Bir Singh [(1995) 3 SCC 330 ] has considered the
scope of sub-section (2) of Section 12 vis-a-vis proviso to
sub-section (2) of Section 18 and held as under:
"The question then is whether the
notice under Section 12(2) is a
valid notice. From a conjoint
reading of Section 11 and 12, it is
clear that notice is only an An
intimation of making of the award
requiring the owner or person
interested to receive compensation
awarded under Section 11. On
receipt of the notice, if the
person interested receives
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
compensation without protest,
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
person interested either to make an
inspection 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 contents.
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
determination of the compensation
as opined by the learned Judge of
the High Court. It is not incumbent
that the person interested should
immediately make the reference
application on his receiving
compensation under Section 31. In
other words, receipt of the amount
and making the reference
application are not simultaneous.
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 envisaged by Section 18(2)"
It is seen that sub-section (1) of Section 12
postulates that award made under Section 11 shall be filed
in the Collector’s Office and the same shall be final and
conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons
interested, whether or not they have respectively appeared
before the Collector, of the true area of the land acquired,
the value of the land acquired and the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested. The Collector is,
therefore, required to issue notice of his award to such of
the persons interested who were either not present
personally or were present through representatives when the
Collector made his award. Sub-section (2), therefore,
requires him to give immediate notice of award to such
interested persons and not simply the communication of the
award as contended form If such interested person who was
present personally or through the representative at the time
of makings of the award, is not required to be supplied the
copy of the award, would it be intended that the award
should be served along with notice to a person who was not
present. This question was considered in the above case and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
it was held that the service of notice is a ministerial act
and the Act did not intend to supply the copy of the award.
The limitation provided under proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 18 prescribes that if an applicant is present or
represented, has to make an application when he receives the
compensation under protest within six weeks from the date of
the Collector’s award and where he was not present within
six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector
under sub-section (2) of Section 12 or within 6 months from
the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall
first expire. In other words, the proviso to sub-section (2)
of Section 18 prescribes the limitation within which the
application for reference under sub-section (1) of Section
18 is required to be made and the failure thereof puts an
end of the right to the claimant to seek a reference under
Section 18. This Court has already held that communication
of the award is not a pre-condition and, therefore, the Full
Bench of the High Court was right in its interpretation of
the provisions of Section 18, proviso read with sub-section
(2) of Section 12. The local amendment does not, therefore,
make any material change to the aforestated interpretation.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the
circumstances, without costs.