Reportable  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2069-2070  OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24191-92 of 2008]

Bhagwan Das & Ors. ....Appellants versus

State of UP & Ors. …Respondents With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2071-2072  OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24193-94 of 2008]

Nayantara Gupta & Ors. ....Appellants versus

State of UP & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.  

Leave granted.  

2. The  lands  of  appellants  within  the  municipal  limits  of  Bisanda  

were  acquired  for  establishing  a  Upmandi  by  Krishi  Utpadan  Mandi  

Samiti  under  preliminary  notification  dated  31.01.2004  and  final  

notification  dated  20.03.2006.  An  award  was  made  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector on 14.03.2007. The appellants were served a notice

on 25.10.2007 by the office of the Collector to appear and receive the  

compensation. The respondents made enquiries and on 16.11.2007 learnt  

that an award had been made on 14.3.2007. Immediately they made an  

application seeking a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition  

Act,  1894  (‘Act’  for  short)  to  the  civil  court  for  determination  of  

compensation.  The  Collector,  Banda  vide  his  order  dated  19.12.2007  

rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made  

beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed  

under Section 18(2) of the Act. The appellants filed a writ petition for  

quashing the said order dated 19.12.2007 and seeking a direction to the  

Land  Acquisition  Collector  to  refer  their  claim  for  increase  in  

compensation  to  the  civil  court.  The  writ  petition  was  dismissed  on  

17.01.2008 as not maintainable, on the ground that an alternative remedy,  

by way of an appeal under section 54 of the Act, was available against  

the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The  

appellants filed a review petition pointing out that Section 54 of the Act  

was inapplicable as it only provides for appeals against awards of courts.  

The  review  petition  was  dismissed  by  order  dated  5.5.2008,  on  the  

ground  that  the  appellants  ought  to  have  filed  an  application  for  

condonation of delay along with the application for reference, before the  

2

Land  Acquisition  Collector.  The  appellants  have  challenged  the  said  

orders  dated  17.01.2008  and  05.05.2008  in  these  appeals  by  special  

leave.  

3. The following questions arise for consideration, on the contentions  

urged :

(a) Whether an appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Act  against  the  order  of  the  Collector  refusing  to  make  a  reference?

(b) Whether  the Collector  can condone the delay in filing an  application seeking reference, if sufficient cause is shown?

(c) Whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the  proviso to section 18 of the Act should be reckoned from the  date of knowledge of the award of the Collector or from the  date of award itself?  

(d) Whether the appellants were entitled to relief?

4. We may, to begin with, refer to the provisions of the Act which are  

relevant for considering these questions. Section 11 of the Act provides  

for an enquiry into objections and making of an award by the Collector.  

Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 requires the Collector shall give immediate  

notice of his award to such of the persons interested as were not present  

personally or by their representatives when the award was made. Section  

18 providing  for Reference to Court is extracted below:-

3

“18. Reference to Court –  

(1) Any person interested 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.  

(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 Section 12, sub-section (2), or   within  six  months  from  the  date  of  the  Collector’s  award,   whichever period shall first expire”.

(emphasis supplied)

Section 54 of the Act providing for appeals. The said section reads:

“54. Appeals in proceedings before court –  

Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,  applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding  anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in  force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings  under this Act  to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award,  of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on  such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court  subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of  Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLIV thereof”.

Re : Question (a)  

5. Section 54 of the Act provides for an appeal from the award  of  

the court in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court, and from  

4

the decree of the High Court to the Supreme Court. Section 3(d) of the  

Act  defines  the  expression  “court”  to  mean  a  principal  civil  court  of  

original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed a  

special officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of  

the court under the Act. On the other hand, the expression “Collector” is  

defined  in  section  2(c)  of  the  Act  as  the  Collector  of  a  district,  and  

includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by  

the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under  

the  Act.  The  decision  of  the  Collector  made  after  an  enquiry  under  

section 11 with the  previous approval of the appropriate Government or  

its  authorized  officer  is  termed  as  the  ‘award  of  the  Collector’.  The  

determination by a court under section 26 of the Act in a reference by the  

Collector is termed as an ‘award of the court’ which shall be deemed to  

be  a  decree.  Thus  there  is  a  difference  between  an  ‘award  of  the  

Collector’ which is an offer of compensation by the Collector as the agent  

of the Government, and ‘an award of the court’ which is a determination  

of  the  compensation  by  a  civil  court  on a  reference  by the  Collector.  

Further, the Collector can either make a reference or refuse to make a  

reference to the court under section 18 of the Act or under section 30 of  

the Act, and such orders of the Collector are merely acts of a Statutory  

5

Authority in exercise of statutory functions and are not adjudicatory in  

nature. Such orders are not awards. The Land Acquisition Collector is not  

a  Court,  nor  his  award  or  order,  an  award  of  the  Court.  While  the  

proceedings  of  a  court  resulting  in  an  award  of  the  court  are  judicial  

proceedings, neither the proceedings of the Collector under section 11 of  

the  Act  resulting  in  an  award  of  the  Collector,  nor  the  proceedings  

relating  to  an  application  seeking  reference,  are  judicial  proceedings.  

Section 54 does not provide for appeals against the awards or orders of  

Land Acquisition Collector. Hence the assumption of the High Court that  

an  order  of  the  Collector  refusing  to  refer  a  claim  for  increase  in  

compensation  to  the  civil  court  under  section  18(1)  of  the  Act,  is  an  

‘award of the court’ appealable under section 54 of the Act, is wholly  

erroneous.

Re : Question (b)

6. The proviso to section 18 requires that an application by a person  

interested,  to  the  Collector,  seeking  reference  of  his  claim for  higher  

compensation for determination by the Court, shall be made within six  

weeks from the date of the Collector’s award, if such person was present  

or  represented  before  the  Collector,  at  the  time  when  the  award  was  

6

made. If not, the application for reference shall have to be made within  

six weeks of the receipt of the notice of the Collector under Section 12(2)  

or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever  

period shall first expire.  

7. In  Officer on Special  Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr. v.  Shah  

Manilal Chandulal & Ors. [1996 (9) SCC 414], this Court held that in  

view of the special limitation provided under the proviso to section 18 of  

the Act,  section 29(2) of the Limitation Act,  cannot be applied to the  

proviso to section 18 of the Act; and therefore, the benefit of sections 4 to  

24 of Limitation Act 1963, will not be available in regard to applications  

under section 18(1) of the Act. It was also held that as the Collector is not  

a court when he discharges his functions as a statutory authority under  

section 18(1) of the Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 cannot be  

invoked for  extension of  the period of  limitation prescribed under the  

proviso to section 18(2) of the Act. As the Collector is not a civil court  

and as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not  

been made applicable to proceedings before the Collector under the Act,  

and as there is  no provision in the Act enabling the  Land Acquisition  

Collector to extend the time for making an application for reference, the  

7

Collector cannot entertain any application for extension, nor extend the  

time  for  seeking  reference,  even  if  there  are  genuine  and  bonafide  

grounds for condoning delay. This view was reiterated in Steel Authority   

of  India  Ltd.  vs.  S.U.T.N.I.  Sangam  and  others [2009  (16)  SCC  1].  

Therefore,  the  observation  of  the  High  Court  that  an  application  for  

condonation of delay could have been made by the person interested, is  

incorrect.  

We should however notice that there is an apparent inconsistency in two  

observations of this Court in S.U.T.N.I. Sangam (supra). In the earlier part  

of the decision,  this Court observed :  “The proceedings under the Land  

Acquisition Collector is of an administrative nature and not of a judicial   

or quasi judicial character.” However, in a latter part of the said decision  

(at  para  75  of  the  report),  this  Court  observed  :  “Land  Acquisition  

Collector  is  a  statutory  authority.  The  proceeding  before  the  Land  

Acquisition  Collector  is  a  quasi-judicial  proceeding.”   As  the  said  

inconsistency has no bearing upon the issue on hand, we do not propose  

to consider it  in this  case,  but leave the clarification to be done in an  

appropriate decision.  

8

Re : Question (c)

8. Clause  (b)  of  the  proviso  to  section  18  requires  a  person  

interested who has not accepted the award, to make an application to the  

Collector requiring him to refer the matter for determination of the court,  

within six weeks of the receipt  of the notice from the Collector under  

section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award  

whichever period first expires, if he or his representative was not present  

before the Collector at the time of making of the award.  

9. The reason for providing six months from the date of the award  

for making an application seeking reference, where the applicant did not  

receive a notice under section 12(2) of the Act, while providing only six  

weeks from the date of receipt of notice under section 12(2) of the Act for  

making an application for reference where the applicant has received a  

notice under section 12(2) of the Act is obvious. When a notice under  

section 12(2) of the Act is received, the land owner or person interested is  

made aware of all relevant particulars of the award which enables him to  

decide whether he should seek reference or not. On the other hand, if he  

only  comes  to  know that  an  award  has  been made,  he  would  require  

further time to make enquiries or secure copies so that he can ascertain  

9

the relevant particulars of the award.  

10. The term 'date of the Collector's award' occurring in clause (b) of  

the proviso, has been interpreted by this Court in several cases.  We may  

refer to a few of them.

10.1) In  Raja  Harish  Chandra  Raj  Singh  v.  Dy.  Land  Acquisition   

Officer  [AIR 1961 SC 1500], this Court held :  

“Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law no more  than an offer made on behalf of the Government to the owner of  the property then the making of the award as properly understood  must  involve  the  communication  of  the  offer  to  the  party  concerned. That is the normal requirement under the contract law  and its applicability to cases of award made under the Act cannot  be reasonably excluded.  Thus considered the date of the award  cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the   award  is  signed  by  the  Collector  or  delivered  by  him in  his   office;  it  must  involve  the consideration of  the  question as  to   when it  was  known to  the  party  concerned either  actually  or   constructively.  If  that  be the  true position  then the literal  and  mechanical  construction  of  the  words  'the  date  of  the  award'  occurring in the relevant section would not be appropriate.

There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If  the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the  Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to  be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the  rights  of the owner  of  the property and in that  sense,  like all  decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that  the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The  knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual  or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied  before the decision can be brought into force.  Thus considered  the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical   

10

act  of  writing the award or signing it  or even filing it  in  the   office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the   said  award  to  the  party  concerned  either  actually  or   constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the  party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be made  when  pronounced.  If  the  date  for  the  pronouncement  of  the  award  is  communicated  to  the  party  and  it  is  accordingly  pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said  to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not  actually present on the date of its pronouncement.  Similarly if  without  notice  of  the  date  of  its  pronouncement  an  award  is  pronounced and a party is not present, the award can be said to  be  made  when  it  is  communicated  to  the  party  later.  The  knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or   constructive,  being  an  essential  requirement  of  fair  play  and  natural justice the expression 'the date of the award' used in the  proviso  must  mean  the  date  when  the  award  is  either   communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or  constructively.  In  our  opinion,  therefore,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  construe  the  words  'from  the  date  of  the  Collector's award' used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or  mechanical way.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.2) In  State  of  Punjab v.  Mst.  Qaisar  Jehan Begum & Anr.  [AIR  

1963 SC 1604], this Court reiterated the principles stated in Raja Harish  

Chandra Raj Singh (supra) and further held as follows :

“It  seems clear  to us that the ratio of the decision in  Harish  Chandra's case (supra) is that the party affected by the award  must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six  months  will  run  from  the  date  of  that  knowledge.  Now,  knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the   fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate   to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be  known  either  actually  or  constructively.  If  the  award  is  communicated to a party under S. 12(2) of the Act, the party  must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the  award  whether  he  reads  it  or  not.  Similarly  when a  party  is  

11

present in court either personally or through his representative  when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed  that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the  scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must  mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.3) In  Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat   

through Dy. Collector Modasa & Anr. [2005 (7) SCC 431]  and in Steel   

Authority of India Ltd. vs.  S.U.T.N.I Sangam   [2009 (16) SCC 1], the  

aforesaid principles were followed and reiterated by this Court.  

11. When a land is acquired and an award is made under section 11  

of  the  Act,  the  Collector  becomes  entitled  to  take  possession  of  the  

acquired  land.  The  award  being  only  an  offer  on  behalf  of  the  

Government, there is always a tendency on the part of the Collector to be  

conservative in making the award, which results in less than the market  

value  being  offered.  Invariably  the  land  loser  is  required  to  make  an  

application  under  section  18  of  the  Act  to  get  the  market  value  as  

compensation. The land loser does not get a right to seek reference to the  

civil court unless the award is made.  This means that he can make an  

application seeking reference only when he knows that an award has been  

made. If the words six months from the ‘date of the Collector's award’  

12

should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not  

the date  of knowledge of the award,  it  will  lead to unjust  and absurd  

results. For example, the Collector may choose to make an award but not  

to  issue  any  notice  under  section  12(2)  of  the  Act,  either  due  to  

negligence or oversight or due to any ulterior reasons. Or he may send a  

notice but may not bother to ensure that it is served on the land owner as  

required under section 45 of the Act. If the words ‘date of the Collector’s  

award’ are literally interpreted, the effect would be that on the expiry of  

six  months  from the date  of  award,  even though the claimant  had no  

notice of the award, he would lose the right to seek a reference. That will  

lead to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between those who are  

notified of the award and those who are not notified of the award. Unless  

the procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, it  

will run the risk of being branded as being violative of Article 14 as also  

Article 300A of the Constitution of India. To avoid such consequences,  

the  words  ‘date  of  the  collector's  award’  occurring  in  proviso  (b)  to  

section 18 requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the  

essential contents of the award, and not the actual date of the Collector’s  

award.   

13

12. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation  

of the proviso to section 18 of the Act :  

(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or  

his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six  

weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself.  

(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested  

(or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking  

reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector  

under section 12(2).

(iii) If  the  person interested  (or  his  representative)  was not  present  

when the award is  made,  and if  he does not  receive the  notice  under  

Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within  

six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to  

know about the contents of the award.  

(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under section 12(2) of the  

Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice,  

he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the  

application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under section  

12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.  

A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time  

14

prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to him to make an application  

under section 28A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the court in  

respect of the other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if  

there is an increase. Be that as it may.  

13. When  a  person  interested  makes  an  application  for  reference  

seeking the benefit of six months period from the date of knowledge, the  

initial  onus is on him to prove that  he (or his representative)  was not  

present  when the award was made,  that he did not  receive any notice  

under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of  

the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing  

the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these  

facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial  

onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land  

Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present  

either in person or through his representative when the award was made,  

or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he  

had  knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  award.  Actual  or  constructive  

knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  award  can  be  established  by  the  

Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the  

15

compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the Mahazar/  

Panchnama/proceedings  delivering  possession  of  the  acquired  land  in  

pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or  

had  acknowledged  the  making  of  the  award  in  any  document  or  in  

statement  on  oath  or  evidence.  The  person  interested,  not  being  in  

possession of the acquired land and the name of the state or its transferee  

being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can  

also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any  

such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he  

did  not  have  knowledge  earlier  will  be  accepted,  unless  there  are  

compelling circumstances to not to do so.  

Re : Question (d)

14. In this case, it is not in dispute that the award was not made in the  

presence of the claimant-land owner. The claimant has asserted that the  

award  was  not  made  in  the  presence  of  either  himself  or  his  

representative, and no notice of the award under section 12(2) of the Act  

was tendered to him. He has also asserted that he became aware of the  

award only when he received the notice dated 25.10.2007 calling upon  

him to receive the payment of the award. The respondents contend that a  

16

notice dated 30.3.2007 was issued under section 12(2) of the Act, to all  

the interested land-owners including the appellants. But it is admitted that  

the said notice was not sent by post nor served on the land-owners. There  

is also no evidence that the said notice was tendered personally to them or  

that they refused to accept it. The respondent has produced a copy of a  

notice dated 30.3.2007 with an endorsement of the person who was sent  

to serve the notice which reads as under : “As per your order I went to  

village Bishanda and informed the farmers but they refused to put their  

signatures. Report is submitted.”  A vague endorsement that the person  

who had to serve the notice went to village and informed the farmers, is  

not  the  same  as  notice  being  specifically  tendered  to  the  person  

concerned. The endorsement-cum-report does not mention or identify the  

farmers  to  whom  he  spoke  or  which  of  them  refused  to  put  their  

signatures.  In  the  absence of  any evidence placed  by the  Collector  to  

show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of the appellants  

that they became aware that an award was made only when the notice  

dated 25.10.2007 was tendered to them and they became aware of the  

contents  of  the  award  only  on  16.11.2007 has  to  be  accepted.  In  the  

circumstances, the date of the award should be taken as 16.11.2007. The  

application  filed  on  16.11.2007  was  therefore  in  time.  The  Land  

17

Acquisition Collector ought to have entertained the application seeking  

reference. The High Court, instead of directing the Collector to make a  

reference, wrongly rejected the writ petition on the ground that an appeal  

is maintainable under section 54 of the Act and also wrongly rejected the  

review petition on the ground that they could have made an application  

for condonation of delay before the Land Acquisition Collector.  

15. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the orders of the  

High Court dated 17.1.2008 and 5.5.2008 are set aside, the writ petition is  

allowed and the Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court  

under section 18 of the Act, without any delay, not later than two months.

….......................................J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …....................................J. February 26, 2010. (K S Radhakrishnan)          

18