LexMANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL & OTHERS versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 343 [2022] 18 S.C.R. 343 343 MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL & OTHERS v. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 9004 of 2022) DECEMBER 12, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 18(2) – Reference to court – Acquisition proceedings – Challenge to, by land owners which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition in 2013 – Thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, within six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the landowners filed reference application u/s. 18 – Dismissed by the reference court as also the High Court on the ground of limitation – On appeal, held: On a fair reading of the judgment passed by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation, those observations are to be read while considering the prayer of the appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings – It appears that the acquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate – Thus, the order passed by the High Court as well as the reference court dismissing the writ petition/reference u/s. 18 as barred by limitation is quashed and set aside – Matter remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of six months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has been confirmed by the High Court. However, it is required to be noted that the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The A B C D E F G H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R. reference applications were filed on 1.7.2013. Though in the writ petition, the award under Section 12(2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation and though the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition, however thereafter reserved liberty in favour of the appellants-original landowners to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that liberty, the appellants-original landowners thereafter and after dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court filed reference. Therefore, in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original landowners whose valuable lands had been acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings. [Para 7][348-E-H; 349-A-B] 1.2 As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and order passed by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation, those observations are to be read while considering the prayer of the appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings. It appears that the acquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate. Therefore, the High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissing the reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the reference court dismissing the writ petition/ reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits. [Para 8][349-C-E] A B C D E F G H 345 Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others (1996) 9 SCC 414 : [1996] 2 SCR 366; Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2005) 7 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.