MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL & OTHERS versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS on 12 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 492/2022, by which the HighCourt has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants hereinand has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the ReferenceCourt, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) as barred bylimitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That a notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to beissued for acquiring the lands in question for the construction of GasCompressor Station and necessary facilities under the Reliance GasTransportation, Surat on 30.07.2008. Declaration under Section 6 of theAct 1894 was issued on 1.6.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collectordeclared the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 awarding A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acompensation @ Rs. 69/- per square meter, vide award dated 6.4.2011.Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 with a copy of the awardwas issued to the landowners/appellants on 25.04.2011. The appellantsfiled Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012 before the High Courtchallenging notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 as wellas award dated 6.4.2011. The Division Bench of the High Court videBjudgment and order dated 7.8.2012 dismissed the said writ petition.However, while dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench reservedliberty with the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available tothem for enhancement of the compensation or any other relief to whichthey may be legally entitled.C2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderdated 7.8.2012 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, theappellants approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. CC 7382/2013. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 dismissedthe special leave petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits.DThat thereafter considering the liberty reserved in favour of the appellantsreserved by the High Court while dismissing writ petition No. 1428/2012, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.The Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation,having been filed beyond the period specified in Section 18(2) of theAct, 1894. The appellants preferred First Appeal No. 492/2022 beforeEthe High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Courthas dismissed the said first appeal by observing that the Reference Courthas rightly dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. The impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter ofthe present appeal.F

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hasvehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the caseand more particularly when the appellants challenged the acquisitionproceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the specialleave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the dateGof dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed referenceunder Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to haveentertained the same and ought to have considered the reference onmerits.

3.1 It is submitted that as such while dismissing Writ Petition No.H1428/2012, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may beavailable to them for enhancement of compensation and thereafter whenthe appellants filed reference for enhancement of the compensation, thesame could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3.2 It is submitted that therefore in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the time taken by theappellants in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court andthereafter before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings isrequired to be excluded.

3.3 It is submitted that the valuable lands of the appellants havebeen acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Act, 1894 andthe Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 69/- persquare meter only. It is submitted that the lands acquired have beensituated in Surat and were very valuable lands. It is submitted that thelandowners are entitled to just compensation for the acquired lands.

3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeal.

4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shyam Divan,learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof respondent No. 3 has vehemently submitted that the time limit to filereference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of thecompensation would be six months from the date of receipt of the awardunder Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that in the presentcase the appellants were served notice under Section 12(2) of the Actwith a copy of the award on 25.4.2011. It is submitted that therefore theperiod of six months for making reference expired on 6.10.2011. It issubmitted that therefore the Reference Court rightly dismissed thereference as barred by limitation.

4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that even otherwisewhile preferring Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012, the appellantsdid challenge the award also contending inter alia that the amount ofcompensation awarded is on a lower side. It is submitted that whiledismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench specifically observedthat the objections raised by the appellants before making of the awardwere mainly related to the amount of compensation and they are not A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Astated to have applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, leadingto the inference that either they were satisfied with the award ofcompensation or have missed the time limit for applying for referenceunder Section 18 of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that the Division Benchhas further observed that therefore the petition and the prayers madetherein are found to be an afterthought and not a bona fide grievanceBabout any injustice. It is submitted that therefore also no interference ofthis Court is called for.

4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions ofthis Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition)& Another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others, (1996) 9 SCC 414Cand Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2005)7 SCC 440, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

5. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the state has supported the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court.D

6. Heard.

7. The reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has beendismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period ofsix months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same hasEbeen confirmed by the High Court. However, it is required to be notedthat the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challengedthe acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) ofthe Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition bythis Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The reference applications werefiled on 1.7.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though inFthe writ petition being SCA No. 1428/2012, the award under Section12(2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of theamount of compensation and though the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissed the said writ petition, however thereafter reserved libertyin favour of the appellants – original landowners to pursue such remedyGas may be available to them for enhancement of compensation or anyother relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that liberty,the appellants – original landowners thereafter and after dismissal of thespecial leave petition by this Court filed reference. Therefore, in view ofthe liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants topursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement ofHcompensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within aperiod of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leavepetition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition, which wasdismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original landowners whosevaluable lands had been acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings.At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petitionbefore the High Court (in the earlier round of litigation) they challengedthe award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observedthat it is too late to make any grievance, still the High Court whiledismissing the writ petition reserved liberty in favour of the appellants toinitiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the compensation.

8. As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and orderpassed by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late tomake the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation,those observations are to be read while considering the prayer of theappellants challenging the acquisition proceedings. It appears that theacquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awardedis inadequate. To that, the observations were made by the High Courtthat it is too late to raise such a dispute. Therefore, the High Court oughtto have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissingthe reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted thematter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.

9. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of thisCourt in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others (supra) andMahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be anydispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitationfor making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot beextended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable.However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning the delay inexercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As observedhereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisitionproceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petitionby this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to theliberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ PetitionNo. 1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissalof the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landownersfiled reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In theaforesaid two decisions before this Court, there were no such facts.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ATherefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicableto the facts of the case on hand.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court as well as the order passed by the reference courtBdismissing the writ petition/reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894as barred by limitation are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter isremitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits. Wedirect the reference court to finally decide and dispose of the referencewithin a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the presentorder.

C

11. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, thereshall be no order as to costs.

D

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H