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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI SATINDER BIR SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/02/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (3) 330        JT 1995 (2)   572  1995 SCALE  (2)97

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.        This appeal by special leave arises from the order of  the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab  &  Haryana dated  April  25,1977  made in  Civil  Revision  Application No.512/73. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the controversy.  They are: Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ’the Act’) was published in the State Gazette  on 15.1.1970 acquiring 40 kanals 17 marlas of land situated  in Mohali village, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar in Punjab  for public purpose.  The Collector made his award under s. 11 of the Act on 1.8.1970. He issued notice under s. 12(2) and  it was  received by the respondent on 22.9. 1970,  He  appeared and  received  compensation  under  protest  on   29.9.1970. Thereafter, he made an application under s. 18 on  21.1.1971 seeking reference to the Civil Court.  The Collector by  his proceedings dated 12.1.1973 had rejected the application  as being  barred by limitation, Calling in question the  order, the  respondent filed revision in the High Court under s.  1 15 as provided under the local 574 Amendment  Act, 1954 by sub-s.(3) of s. 18 of the Act.   The High  Court  allowed the revision holding  that  though  the respondent  had received the notice on September  22,  1970, the notice did not contain all the details as to how  market value of the land was evaluated; the respondent was not in a position  to know the determination of the compensation  for making an application for reference under s. 18.  Therefore, it  is  not a proper notice and  the  limitation  prescribed under s. 1 8(2) has no application. 2.   The  only  question that arises  for  consideration  is whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that  the notice issued under s. 12(2) should contain all the  details of the award.  Section 11 of the Act contemplates that while making  the award the Collector needs to determine  (i)  the

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

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 all the persons 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. 3.   Section  12 provides that the award shall be  filed  in the Collector’s office and shall, except as provided in  the Act,  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 persons interested.  Sub-s.(2) of s.  12  mandates that the Collector  "shall  give  immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when  the award is made". 4.   Section 18 of the Act gives right to the     owner   or interested person 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. Sub-s.(2) of s-18 is relevant which reads 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               s.  12, sub-s.(2), or within six  months  from               the  date of the Collector’s award,  whichever               period shall first expire. 5. It would thus be clear that the interested person who had received the compensation under protest is required to state in  his  application for reference the grounds on  which  he objects to the compensation awarded by the Collector, within six  weeks  from the date of the award when  either  he  was present or was represented by a counsel or agent, or  within six  weeks from the date of the receipt of the  notice  from the Collector sent under s. 12(2), or within six 575 months  from  the date of the award made  by  the  Collector whichever  period should first expire.  In this  case  since the  respondent had admittedly received the notice from  the Collector under s.12(2) on September 22, 1970, by  operation of  first part of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-s.(2)  of S.  18, the respondent was enjoined to make the  application under s. 18 within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the  notice.   Since  admittedly, he did not  make  the  ap- plication within six weeks, it was barred by limitation. 6.The question then is whether the notice under s..12(2)is a valid notice. From a conjoint reading of ss.  II and 12,  it is clear that notice is only an intimation of making of  the award  requiring the owner or interested person  to  receive compensation awarded under s. 1 1. On receipt of the notice, if  the  interested  person  receives  compensation  without protest, obviously no reference need be made.  The  determi- nation of compensation becomes final and binds the  parties.

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

When  he receives the compensation under protest as  contem- plated  under  s.31  of  the Act, the need  to  make  the  a Duplication  for  reference under S.18(1) would  arise.   At that  juncture it will be open to the interested person  ei- ther  to make inspection of the award which  was  conclusive between  him and the Collector by operation of sub-s.(1)  of s.  12,  or  seek a certified copy of  the  award  from  the Collector and the contents.  Thereon be could make necessary objection for the determination inter alia, of  compensation for  the land.  It is not necessary that the, notice  should contain   all  the  details  of  the  award  including   his consideration and its manner of determination of the compen- sation as opined by the learned Judge of the High Court.  It is   not  incumbent  that  the  interested   person   should immediately make the reference application on his  receiving compensation  under  s.31.  In other words  receipt  of  the amount   and  making  the  reference  application  are   not simultaneous.    The  statutory  operation   of   limitation mentioned by s. 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of  communication of notice in any particular form when  the Act  or Rules has not prescribed any form.   The  limitation begins-to  operate from the moment the notice under  s.12(2) is received or as envisaged by s. 18 (2). 7.The  notice  in  the present  case  contained  the  amount awarded.  The area acquired was not in dispute.  Under these circumstances,  the  learned Judge was clearly in  error  in holding  that  since  the notice did  not  contain  all  the details of the consideration and as to how the  compensation has  been determined the notice was not a proper notice  and therefore  limitation did not begin to run from the date  of the  receipt of the notice and thereby the rejection of  the application was not legal. 8.The  appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the  High Court is set aside.  But unfortunately, in the circumstances the  respondent  lost  his right of  reference  and  we  are helpless.  No costs. 576