LexMADAN & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 761 MADAN & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Civil Appeal No. 10863 of 2013) DECEMBER 06, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 18 - Reference - Limitation - Expression, "the date of - award" - Connotation of - Held: The expression "the date of the award" used in proviso (b) to s. 18(2) must be understood to mean the date when the award is either communicated to A B c the party or is known by him either actually or constructively D - In the instant case, it is for t/1e first time on the date of order u/s 30 that the appellants came to know that they were entitled to compensation and the quantum thereof - Reference u/s 18 was made within 6 weeks from the said date - Therefore, . the view taken by the High Court that reference u/s 18 was E barred by limitation cannot be sustained - Order of High Court is set aside and the award of enhanced compensation made by reference court u/s 18 restored. ss. 18 and 30 - References under - Distinction between - Explained - Limitation for filing reference uls 18 - Held: The F two Sections operate in entirely different circumstances - While s. 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, s.30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims - In such a G situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the court uls 30 of the Act - The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit - In either situation, the right to receive 761 H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A compensation under the award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant - It is only thereafter that a reference u/s 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant ;n whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the court in the B reference u/s 30 or in the civil suit, as may be. In a case of land acquisition, the Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer) made the award on 16.8.1985. As there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of C the land, the Collector referred the matter to civil court for apportionment of compensation u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference u/s 30 was disposed of by the Additional District Judge on 4.9.1991 holding that the appellants (claimants 1 and 2) were entitled to compensation in respect of 20 acres of the acquired land D and the remaining parties (claimants 3 to 7) for compensation in respect of remainder of the acquired land. The appellants received the compensation on 5.9.1991 and within six weeks from the date of the order dated 4.9.1991 they sought a reference uls 18 of the Act - E for enhancement of the compensation awarded. The said reference was numbered as L.A.R. No. 7511992 and was decided by the Additional District Judge, by order dated 29.10.1993 enhancing the compensation amount by an additional sum of Rs.2, 10,000/- along with solatium, F interest etc. The appeal filed by the State Government was decided by the High Court only on the issue of limitation by holding the same to be time barred. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh*, this H Court has held that the expression "the date of the award" used in proviso (b) to s.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be understood to mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party MADAN & ANR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 763 or is known by him either actually or constructively. It has A been further held that it will be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used . in the proviso to s.18 in a literal or mechanical way. [para 10) [769-D-E] B Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. 1962 SCR 676 = AIR 1961 SC 1500 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, a finding has been recorded by the reference court in its order dated 29.10.1993 that C "the petitioners had no knowledge about the passing of the award till the date of payment of compensation on 5.9.1991 because they were held entitled to receive the compensation after the decision of Reference u/s 30 dated 4. 9. 1991." Thus, it is for the first time on 4.9.1991 (date of the order u/s 30 D of the Act) tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.