P.B Majmudar, J.:— This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Learned Extra Joint District Judge, Pune dated 31st January, 1992. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed Land Reference No. 23 of 1987 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
2. The appellant herein is the original claimant. The claimant was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 127/3, C.T.S No. 633B/14 situated at Kothrud, Pune 29. The claimant has constructed buildings for Jhala Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Kamlesh Co-operative Housing Society and Asavari Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Pune in the locality. When the layout plan was sanctioned owned by the claimant, he was given to understand that the portion of land would be acquired for D.P Road. Hence, the claimant kept the portion of this land for that purpose. The claimant has also constructed a pucca road at his own cost on the portion of the land reserved for D.P Road. The claimant also received some compensation by way of negotiations in respect of the other nearby lands. The land under acquisition was thereafter acquired and the claimant was served with notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. A notification under section 126 sub-clause (4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 read with section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1997 was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 27th August, 1983. The property bearing Survey No. 127/3, C.T.S No. 633.B14 was the subject-matter of the acquisition. However while publishing the notification there was a mistake in mentioning the survey number and after correcting the mistake, the corrigendum was published in the Gazette on 4th January, 1986 in which the survey number of the land under acquisition was corrected. The claimant appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and filed his objections for determining the compensation. Since the Claimant lodged his objection on 5th May, 1985 i.e prior to corrigendum, it can be presumed that he was aware that the land is sought to be acquired on the basis of notification dated 27th August, 1983. The aforesaid date is required to be taken as basis for determining the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering various sale instances declared his Award on 1st January, 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,44,600/. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant claimant sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter was referred to the District Court, Pune and it was numbered as Land Reference No. 23 of 1987. The learned judge however found that the reference is beyond the period of limitation as the same was not filed within the period of 6 months from service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimant. On merits also, the learned trial judge has found that the Land Acquisition Officer has declared the Award after considering the evidence on record and there is no scope for any enchancement of the compensation. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned trial judge this appeal has been preferred by the claimant.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants Mr. S.S Kanetkar, has attacked the judgment of the trial Court both on the ground of rejecting the reference on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Kanetkar that at the time of intimating the Award to the claimant, the contents of the Award was not sent to the claimant and therefore the claimant applied for certified copy of the Award and the reference was sought for by the claimant within a period of 6 weeks from receipt of certified copy of the award. It is submitted, that the reference is within the limitation period and the trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that it is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the contents of the Award were not known and therefore, unless, the claimant receives the copy of the Award it will not be possible to pay large Court fees, if he is required to take legal opinion on this as to whether the matter is worth litigating further. Mr. Kanetkar has relied upon various judgments in support of his contentions. On merits, Mr. Kanetkar submitted the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly appreciated various sale instances and is at fault in determining the compensation for various pieces of land. He submitted that the compensation should have been awarded atleast at the rate of Rs. 300 per sq. mtr instead of Rs. 140/- per sq.mts granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. Learned AGP who is appearing in the matter for the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Mr. Khadapkar who is appearing for Pune Municipal Corporation, both have submitted to the orders of the Court. It is submitted by them that the law is well settled on this subject that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable regarding making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and then if the reference is not made within a period of 6 weeks from service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimant, the Court has no option but to dismiss such reference as time barred.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at length and we have gone through the records and proceedings. We have gone through the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and have also gone through the reasoning of the learned trial judge. The first question which is required to be considered is whether the reference of the appellant-claimant under section 18 of the Act can be said to be time barred. On this point, it is required to be noted that the Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10th January, 1986. The claimant was served with notice of the Award on 15th January, 1986. The certified copy of the Award was delivered to the claimant on 24th January, 1986 and the reference was filed on 6th March, 1986. Accordingly, it was found that there was a delay of five days in filing the reference. However, if the statement of Mr. Kanetkar is to be considered that reference can be made within a period of six weeks from receipt of certified copy, then, obviously the reference is within time. However, it is not in dispute that the reference has not been made within a period of 6 weeks from date of service of notice under section 12(2) and in that view of the matter, the matter is required to be considered as to whether it would be open to the claimant to go for a reference after getting certified copy or as to whether the time consumed for getting the certified copy can be excluded for the purpose of calculating six weeks time. Learned Counsel Mr. Kanetkar at this stage relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangilal Jawanmal v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (I), Thana, reported in AIR 1978 Bom. 325. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter has considered the aspect about limitation in connection with the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Division Bench has found that as per the provisions of Bombay Court Fee Act, 1959 the claimant is required to pay half of the advalorem Court fees while seeking a reference and the claimant is required to consider as to whether he should go in for reference or not and for the said purpose, it would be necessary that the claimant should have knowledge of the essential contents of the Award including the reasons or the basis on which the quantum of compensation has been fixed by the Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Officer as these things would constitute the essential contents of the Award, as without such knowledge it would be impossible for any claimant to make his application for reference stating the grounds of his objection to the Award. Considering the said aspect the Division Bench held that the limitation of 6 weeks prescribed by the Act would commence from the date when effective notice was served upon the petitioners. In Para 30 the Division Bench has observed as under:
“30. Having regard to the above discussion, in our view, the learned Joint Judge was clearly in error in taking the view that the reference was not maintainable inasmuch as the application for reference itself was barred by time. For the reasons indicated above, the limitation of six weeks prescribed by the first part of proviso (b) to section 18(2) would commence from the date when the effective notice was served upon the petitioners which in the instant case would be on 1-3-1974 when the copy of the award was ready for delivery to them and since from that day the application for reference was made within the prescribed period of limitation, the same was well within time.”
6. Relying upon the said observation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the period of 6 months commences only from receiving the certified copy of the Award or in any case, the time consumed for getting such certified copy should be excluded from calculating six weeks time. It is submitted that unless the essential contents of the Award are known, it is not possible to ask for reference as no particulars can be given by him unless the entire Award is available to him for challenge. However, though the argument of learned counsel for petitioner, is attractive, this question is no longer open for any further debate as in the case of State of Punjab v. Satinder Birsingh, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 330 the Supreme Court has held that limitation for filing application for reference begins to run from the moment the notice under section 12(2) is received or as envisaged by section 18(2). Statutory operation of limitation does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form. In para 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that notice should contain all the details of the Award including his consideration and manner of determination of the compensation. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, starting point of limitation is receipt of the notice by the claimant under section 12(2). In view of this judgment of Supreme Court, it is not possible for us to accept the say of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the time consumed in obtaining the certified copy is required to be excluded, as in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court the six weeks time starts running moment the claimants receives notice under section 12(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, since it is an admitted fact that the reference was not made within the period of 6 weeks from receipt of the notice under section 12(2), the trial Court has rightly dismissed the reference on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Considering the said aspect, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Kanetkar that when the claimant is required to pay considerable amount towards Court fees and unless the details of the Award are available, it is not possible for him to take a decision regarding preferring an appropriate application for enhancement of compensation. At this stage, the submission of Mr. Kanetkar is also required to be taken into consideration as to whether on merits the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. In this connection we have also gone through the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered three sale instances out of which sale instances No. 1 and 3 of the Award are in connection with the agreement to sale and another was sale deed regarding Plot No. 98 having area of 540 sq.mts The relevant date which was taken into consideration was 21st March, 1983. So far, the said sale instance is concerned, the rate at which the property was sold is Rs. 300/- per sq. mtr. However, the learned Trial judge found that the same was in agricultural area and was having greater potentiality. In the instant, the relevant date for determining the compensation is 27th August, 1983. The office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer has tried to collect evidence as well as instances and ultimately fixed Rs. 140/- per sq. ft for the land which has great potentiality. Regarding the other small portion of the land, i.e strip of the land it was found that the same was under acquisition and therefore not open for the claimant to deal with it in any manner and it would have fetched no market value. The learned Judge has after recording the evidence has found that the compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper.
7. Going through the Award of the Collector as well as going through the reasoning of the learned trial Judge, in our view, the learned Judge has not committed any error in accepting the Award of the Collector and it is rightly found that no additional compensation is required to be given in the reference, considering that even the claimant has not led any satisfactory evidence for justifying additional compensation as claimed in the reference. Considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the order of the trial Court is not required to be interfered with, insofar as, acceptance of the Award of the Collector is concerned. Hence, the trial Judge has rightly rejected the reference both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Accordingly, we find no substance in the First Appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal Dismissed.
Comments