http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 314 JT 1995 (6)     1  1995 SCALE  (4)663

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This is  an appeal  by Certificate under Article 133(1) against  the   order  of  the  High  Court  dated  the  28th September, 1977 of Calcutta High Court.      The  only  question  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the Reference Applications made by the appellant were within the limitation as  provided under  the proviso to s.18(2) of the land Acquisition  Act,  1894  (for  short  ‘The  Act’).  The Notification under  s.4 of  the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act II of 1948 was published on April 10, 1949. The  record   would  indicate   that  the  Land  Acquisition Collector appears  to have  made the award on March 22, 1951 and appears  to have  signed the  same on March 29, 1951. We are not  giving any  finding in  that  behalf.  Dissatisfied therewith the  claimants sought  for reference and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation. The State went in appeal to the  High   Court.  The  Division  Bench  noticed  that  the reference applications  were made beyond limitation and that therefore the  award of  the Civil  Court  was  held  to  be without jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal by Certificate.      Shri Poti, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that  when the  award itself  was  signed  by  the Collector on March 29, 1951, the service of the notice under s.12(2) of  the Act  on February  6, 1951  appears to be not correct and  so the  Reference Applications which came to be made on  June 26,  1951 and  September 7  1951 are valid and within limitation  and the  High Court  was not justified in holding that Reference Application were beyond limitation.      Having considered  the  paucity  of  evidence  in  this behalf, we  find that  it is  not desirable  to decide  this controversy without any factual foundation. We think that an appropriate course  would be that the Reference Court should go into the question:-      (1) What  is the date on which the award      as required  under s.12  read with  s.11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    was  made   by  the   Land   Acquisition      Officer, in  accordance with  laws,  and      notice as  required under  s.12(2)  were      served on the claimants, if they are not      present or  appeared through  counsel at      the time  of announcing  the award under      s.11?      (2) What  are the  dates  on  which  the      applications under s.18 came to be filed      by the  claimants and  to decide whether      the   applications    are   within   the      limitation as provided under the proviso      to s.18(2) of the Act?      Since these  questions hinge  upon the  finding of fact and since  no positive  finding could  be recorded  in  this behalf on  the basis of evidence on record, we hold that the Judgment of  the High Court was not correct. Accordingly, it is set aside and the award and decree of the Reference Court is also  set aside.  The matter is referred to the Reference Court, firstly  to decide whether the Reference Applications were made  within limitation  in accordance with law. If the finding is  in favour of the claimant, then it has to decide the compensation according to law. Since it is an old matter the Reference  Court is  directed to  dispose of  the matter within 6 months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.      The appeals are disposed of in above terms.