http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIVABAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment made by  the Division  Bench of  the High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh on April 15, 1994 in A.S. No.1052/92.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on August 19, 1965, acquiring  large tracts  of land  comprised in several villages for  submersion due  to Sriram  Sagar Project.  The land in question to an extent of 206 acres 16 gunthas of the land  is   situated  in  the  village  Nallur  in  Nizamabad District. Possession thereof was taken on November 22, 1965. After completion  of the enquiry under Section 11, the award came to  be made  on the  same date. The compensation at the rate of  Rs.430/- per acre for the dry lands and at the rate of Rs.430/-  per acre for dry black cotton lands was awarded and paid.  A writ petition was filed in 1986 by two persons, i.e. respondent  Nos. 1  and 2, claiming that they had filed an application  Nos.1 and 2, claiming that they had filed an application under protest, but reference under Section 8 was not made.  The learned  single  judge  directed  an  enquiry whether notice under Section 12(2) and the award were served on the claimants as per the law then existing; if notice was not served,  to take  necessary action of reference. In writ appeal, it  was confirmed. Thereafter, reference was made in O.P.  No.198/90.  application,  I.A.  No.285/91,  was  filed seeking remission of the reference on the ground that it was obtained  fraudulently  with  the  connivance  of  the  Land Acquisition  Officer  and  was  barred  by  limitation.  The Additional District  Judge by  order dated  October 23, 1991 dismissed the  application. An I.A. was filed for impleading other persons,  respondent Nos.3 to 103, and the application was allowed by the District Judge. On the basis thereof, the reference was answered by enhancing the compensation ranging between Rs.3,000/-  to Rs.2,000/-  per acre.  On appeal, the Division Bench  in the  impugned judgment  has confirmed the enhanced compensation. Thus this appeal, by special leave.      When the matter had come up before us, we issued notice to the  counsel for  the State  to produce  the  Acquittance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Registers. Pursuant  thereto, the Acquittance Registers have been produced which establish that on the day when the award came to be passed, the claimants were present and the amount was received  by them  without protest  on November 25, 1965 and two  of them, who were not present on that day, received the compensation  two days  thereafter, namely, November 27, 1965.  Under   these  circumstances,  the  question  arises: whether the reference application came to be made within two months from the date of the award?      The proviso  to sub-section  (2) of  Section 18  speaks thus:      "(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."      Thus it  could be  seen  that  when  the  parties  were present at  the time  when the  award came  to be  made, the notice under  clause (b)  of proviso  to sub-section  (2) of Section 18  was not  necessary. As a consequence, within six weeks from  the date of the award an application is required to be  made for reference under Section 18. If the amount is received without  protest, by operation of second proviso to sub-section (2)  of Section 31, such person who has received the amount  without  protest  is  not  entitled  to  seek  a reference under section 18.      Shri C.  Sitaramiah, learned  senior counsel  appearing for the  respondents, contends  that on the Division Bench’s directing to  make an   enquiry  into the  matter, the  Land Acquisition Officer  himself has referred the matter. Unless there is  proof of  service of the notice of the award under sub-section (2)  of Section  12,  the  limitation  does  not start. We  are unable  to agree with the learned counsel. It is now  settled law  that it is not necessary that the award or its  copy should 12(2) of the Act. If the parties are not present on  the date  the award  came  to  be  passed,  then Collector/Land  Acquisition  Officer  shall  give  immediate notice of  his award.  The imitation  begins to run from the date of  the notice  as per  proviso to  Section 18(2).  The date of  the award  and the  date  of  the  receipt  of  the compensation was  incidentally the  same date.  Under  these circumstances, it must be presumed that they were present on the date  when the  award was  made and the compensation was received without  any protest.  Under  these  circumstances. they are not entitled to seek any reference.      No doubt  they had  filed the writ petition in the High Court for  seeking reference. But the High Court’s order was only for  making reference  on verification  and to find out correct  factual   position.  The  officer  himself  was  in collusion with  the claimants and without making any enquiry he made  the  reference.  Subsequently,  some  persons  were impleaded to  the reference.  That itself indicates that all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

was not  going well.  It is now settled position in law that the claimants who receive the compensation under protest and who make application under Section 18(1), alone are entitled to seek a reference: third parties, who have been impleaded, have no  right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process  of reference  under  Section  18.  Under  these circumstances,  the   reference  itself   is   without   any Jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference  court is clearly illegal. On appeal, the High Court has not considered all these perspectives and found it convenient to  rely on  another judgment to uphold the award of the civil court. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment and award of the reference  court as well as that of the High Court stand set aside. No costs.