- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bai Mani v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision application challenges an order made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 1 August 1977, which rejected the petitioner's request for a reference against an earlier award dated 27 February 1976. The award had granted compensation (Rs. 11,040) to the petitioner and others for three pieces of land ("Bet Bhatha land", S. Nos. 33/part, 32/part and 130/part) in village Maktampore, Broach district, acquired for construction of a bridge across the Narmada near Jhadeshwar.
Possession of the petitioner's three parcels was taken on 15 June 1973 by the Public Works Department in anticipation of acquisition. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 20 December 1973 and 22 August 1974 respectively, and notice to file compensation claim was issued on 3 September 1974. The petitioner was served with the notice under Section 9 and filed a statement of claim. Following the award of 27 February 1976, the petitioner applied for a reference under Section 18(1) by application dated 7 April 1977; the SLAO rejected that reference application on 1 August 1977 on the ground that, by an earlier order dated 14 August 1973, the land had been forfeited to the Government for non-payment of the third instalment of occupancy price.
The petitioner filed this revision under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended by the State of Gujarat). The revisional hearing is brought under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (as indicated in the opinion).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer acted within jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's reference application under Section 18(1) on the ground of forfeiture that allegedly occurred after the award had been made.
- Whether an award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act remains final and binding between the Collector and persons interested unless it is amended under Section 12-A within the prescribed six-month period (and, if not amended, whether subsequent events can be used to deny a right to seek reference).
- Whether the reliance on the authority that the Court of reference may determine its own jurisdiction (as cited by the Assistant Government Pleader) affects the revisional court's power to set aside the SLAO's order refusing reference.
Arguments of the Parties
Government / Special Land Acquisition Officer (Respondent)
- The SLAO rejected the petitioner's reference application on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be interested in the land because the land was forfeited to the Government (order dated 14 August 1973) for non-payment of the third instalment of occupancy price; therefore she was not entitled to seek reference.
- The Assistant Government Pleader relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Mahadeo Krishna Parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag (AIR 1944 Bom 200), arguing that the Court to which a reference is made has the power to investigate whether statutory conditions for making a valid reference were complied with, including examining subsequent events such as forfeiture which might extinguish the claimant's interest.
- The Government's affidavit-in-reply did not allege that the award of 27 February 1976 had been amended under Section 12-A within the statutory limitation period.
Petitioner
- The petitioner applied for a reference under Section 18(1) challenging the award made in her favour; the petitioner's specific submissions are not detailed beyond seeking the reference and contesting the rejection.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mahadeo Krishna Parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag, AIR 1944 Bom 200 | That the Court to which a reference is made has power to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the reference by investigating whether statutory conditions for making a valid reference have been complied with. | The court considered this authority but held it did not assist the Government's contention before a revisional forum. The revisional court observed that it is not the court of reference and therefore need not exercise the power to determine jurisdiction under Section 18; reliance on that case did not permit the SLAO to go behind the award without amendment under Section 12-A. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeds from the statutory scheme of the Land Acquisition Act as explicated in the opinion. The key statutory provisions discussed are Section 11 (inquiry and award by Collector), Section 12 (finality of award), and Section 12-A (power to amend awards for clerical/arithmetic mistakes within six months), together with the procedural right to seek a reference under Section 18(1) and revision under Section 18(3) as amended by Gujarat.
Step-by-step reasoning as stated in the opinion:
- The award under Section 11, when made, becomes final and conclusive between the Collector and persons interested in respect of the true area, value, and apportionment of compensation, except insofar as it may be amended under Section 12-A.
- Section 12-A permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors from accidental slips or omissions, within six months of the award; until any permissible amendment is made under that provision the award remains final and binding.
- The Government's affidavit did not assert that the award of 27 February 1976 had been amended under Section 12-A within the statutory period. That omission is significant because, if no amendment was made, the award continued to be final between the parties.
- The SLAO rejected the reference on the ground of a prior forfeiture (14 August 1973) and consequent cesser of the petitioner's interest. The court held that the SLAO exceeded his jurisdiction by going behind the unamended award and treating the later event (forfeiture) as if it altered the effect of the award without first amending the award as the statute prescribes.
- The court rejected the contention, advanced via Mahadeo Krishna Parkar, that the revisional forum should investigate the jurisdictional facts relied on by the SLAO. The court explained it is not a Court of reference under Section 18; the power to determine jurisdiction belongs to the Court of reference itself, not to the revisional authority under Section 115 CPC. Thus, reliance on the case did not justify the SLAO's action of refusing reference on the ground of subsequent forfeiture.
- If the forfeiture event was such that the award required amendment, the proper course for the SLAO (or Collector) would have been to amend the award under Section 12-A within the statutory time if such amendment were permissible. In the absence of such amendment, the SLAO could not lawfully treat the award as having been altered and refuse to make the statutory reference.
- Accordingly, the court concluded the SLAO both exceeded his jurisdiction (by effectively re-writing the award without amendment) and failed to exercise his statutory duty to make the reference under Section 18(1).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision application was allowed. The impugned order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 1 August 1977 was set aside. The court directed that the matter be sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer with a direction that he must make a reference under Section 18(1) to the Court of competent jurisdiction within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ by him. The Government was ordered to pay costs to the petitioner and the rule was made absolute. (The opinion concludes: "Application allowed.")
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: the petitioner obtains an order setting aside the SLAO's refusal and a directive that a reference be made, restoring the petitioner's procedural right to have the reference heard by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
- No broader or novel precedent was asserted in the opinion beyond application of the statutory framework: the decision enforces the principle that an award remains final unless and until amended under Section 12-A within the limitation period, and that an administrative officer cannot treat subsequent events as altering the award without following the statutory amendment procedure.
DISPOSITION: Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; SLAO directed to make reference under Section 18(1) within two weeks; Government to pay costs.
Judgement
This revision application is against the order made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on August 1, 1977 rejecting reference sought by the petitioner herein against the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated Feb. 27, 1976 awarding compensation to her along with 16 other owners of land known as "Bet Bhatha land" of S. Nos. 33/part, 32/part and 130/part situate in village Maktampore in Broach district for purposes of construction of bridge across Narmada river near Jhadeshwar. It should be noted that the possession of the aforesaid three pieces of land of the petitioner was taken oven on June 15,1973 by the Public Works Department of the State Government in pursuance of private negotiations with her in anticipation of the regular acquisition proceedings. Notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in that behalf were issued on Dec. 20, 1973 and Aug. 22, 1974, respectively. Notice to file compensation claim was issued on Sept 3, 1974. It is common ground that the petitioner was served with the aforesaid notice under S. 9 and she had filed her statement of claim in respect of the three pieces of land in pursuance thereof. The Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned made an award on Feb. 27, 1976 awarding compensation, inter alia, to the petitioner for the aforesaid three pieces of land in the sum of Rs. 11,040/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, had sought reference under S. 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act by her application of April 7, 1977 which was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his aforesaid order of Aug. 1, 1977, because, according to him, she was not entitled to seek reference as the three pieces of land in question were forfeited to the Government by an earlier order of Aug. 14, 1973 for non-payment of the third instalment of the occupancy price. This order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Aug. 1, 1977 is the subject-matter of this revision before me which has been preferred under S. 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the State of Gujarat.
2. I am of the opinion that this revision must clearly succeed obviously for the following reasons :
The Special Land Acquisition Officer has acted in excess of jurisdiction, inasmuch as he rejected the reference application of the petitioner on some extraneous grounds to the effect that the petitioner has ceased to be interested in the land since it was forfeited for nonpayment of occupancy price. A few relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act should be referred to for purposes of understanding the challenge made in this revision application.
3. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for enquiry and award by Collector. Sub-sec, (i) of S. 11 enjoins the Collector to inquire into the objections on the day so fixed for that purpose which any interested person has filed pursuant to the notice under S. 9 to the measurements made under S. 8 and into the valve of the land on the date of the notification under S. 4, and also to inquire about the respective interests of tile persons claiming compensation. The Collector would be making award under his hand of-
(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 an the parsons 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. Sec. 12 prescribes time when the award of the Collector is to assume finality. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 12, as it is material for purposes of this revision, reads as under :
"(1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, 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
S. 12-A, which has been brought on the statute book by the Bombay Amendment Act 1953 (35 of 1953) provides for the amendment of award either suo motu by the Collector or on the application of the person interested. Sub-section (1) of S. 12-A reads as under :
"(1) Any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or errors arising therefrom, accidental slips or omissions may, at any time not later than six months from the date of the award, be corrected by the Collector either on his own motion or on the application of a person interested and the award so corrected shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly."
Sub-sec. (2) of S. 12-A provides for recovery of the overpayment made, if the amendment of the award so indicates. It is, therefore, clear that till the award is amended under S. 12-A, the award remains final between the Collector and the persons interested, inter alia, about the true area and the value of the land and the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested, if there is any. On plain reading of S. 12-A, this power of amendment is available for limited purpose, namely, for correction of award arising as a result of clerical or arithmetical mistake, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. Again, the power is to be exercised within a period of six months from the date of the award. In other words, the net effect of the combined reading of Ss. 11, 11-A and 12-A is that till the award is amended, it will operate as final and binding between the Collector and the persons interested, inter alia, as to the true area of the land, the value of the land and the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested.
4. In the long affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government, it has nowhere been claimed that this award in question made on Feb. 27, 1976 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was amended, if at all it could have been amended, within the prescribed period of limitation under S. 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act. If the award is not amended, as it does not seem to be, and since no reference is made to this important fact in the affidavit-in-reply, nor has it been referred to or stated in the impugned order of Aug. 1, 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has no power or authority to reject the reference application on the ground that the land was forfeited for the alleged breach of the condition of payment of the occupancy price.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision of Bombay High Court in Mahadeo Krishna Parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag, AIR 1944 Bom 200 that the Court to which a reference has been made has always a power to determine, whether it has jurisdiction to hear the reference made to it by investigation as to whether the statutory conditions required for making a valid reference have been complied with or not. The learned Assistant Government Pleader wanted me, therefore, to consider that if as a result of the subsequent event taking place the land in question has been forfeited and the petitioner who claims herself to be the person interested in the land had ceased to have any interest in it, this Court can certainly look into it and see whether these statutory conditions are satisfied for making a reference as was sought by the petitioner. I have not been able to appreciate how, in the first place, the decision of the Bombay High Court can be of any assistance to the cause of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, because, it is for the Court to which the reference is made under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the matter or not. I am not called upon to exercise that power of the Court since I am not a Court of reference but I am hearing this revision application under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. against an order refusing to make the reference under S. 18 (1) read with S. 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act There is also another reason for rejecting this contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the award made under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act continues to be final and binding between the Government and the persons interested till it is amended under S. 12-A for the limited reasons and on the grounds specified therein. It is to be recalled that it is nobodys case that the award in question was amended. If the award in question was not amended, it would continue to be final and binding to the parties and I cannot consider the alleged subsequent event that is said to have taken place. The event on which reliance has been placed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the forfeiture of the land in question to the Government and cesser of interest of the petitioner therein for her failure in payment of the occupancy price. If this is the event, which has taken place, the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have amended the award, if it was permissible for him to do so within the period of limitation prescribed under S. 12-A. If the amendment is not made as required by the Act, the award in question, where the petitioner is admittedly shown as a person interested in the three pieces of land and therefore entitled to compensation as awarded therein, I do not think that the Special Land Acquisition Officer can go behind the award, consider certain subsequent events which are alleged to have taken place, and read the award as if it was amended without effecting the amendment as prescribed by law. To the extent to which he has done this, he has not only exceeded the jurisdiction but also failed to exercise his jurisdiction which is vested in him to make reference which is required by law.
6. The result is that this revision application is allowed and the impugned order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Aug. 1, 1977 is set aside, and the matter should go back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer with the direction that he must make a reference under S. 18 (1) to the Court of competent jurisdiction within two weeks from the data of receipt of the writ by him. The Government shall pay costs to the petitioner, Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Application allowed.
Alert