PARSOTTAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY COLLECTOR MODASA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 06-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PARSOTTAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY COLLECTOR MODASA 
AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act; Ss. 12 and 18 : 
C 
Acquisition of land-Award-Filing of Reference petition by the 
claimants beyond six months from the date of pronouncement of the Award 
but within six months from the date on which the declaration of the award 
came to their knowledge-Limitation-Held : Since claimants were not 
present when the Award was pronounced and notice under Section 12(2) 
D of the Act was not given to them, reference application was filed within 
limitation period-Matter remitted to the High Court for disposal on merit. 
E 
F 
Pursuant to acquisition proceedings taken by the authorities under 
the Land Acquisition Act, an award was declared under Section 11 of 
the Act on January 17, 1982. The claimants filed an application for 
making a reference under Section 18 of the Act on September 22, 1988. 
The High Court held that since the application for making a reference 
was filed beyond a period of six months from the date of declaration 
of the award; it was barred by limitation, and quashed the award passed 
by the Reference Court. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended by the claimants-appellants that the High Court 
clearly erred in law in holding the reference application to be barred 
by time inasmuch as they were not present when the award was made 
nor where they served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Act and 
that they had no knowledge of the date of declaration of the award 
G till July, 1988 when compensation was paid to them. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Since the claimants were not present when the award 
H was made, and no notice was given to them under Section 12(2) of the 
1192 
f 
,. 
..... 
• 
' 
PARSOTTAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL 1•_ STATE TIIROUGH DY. COLLECTOR MODASA \ 193 
Land Acquisition Act, the application for making a reference under A 
Section 18 of the Act must be held to be within time if it is filed within 
six months from the date of knowledge of the declaration or the award. 
2.1. This Court in the case of Rajah Harish Candra held that the 
limitation under the latter part to Section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to B 
be computed having regard to the date on which 1he claimants got 
knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. 
This principle, however, will apply only to cases where the applicant 
was not present or represented when the award was made, or where 
no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon him It will 
also apply to a case where the date for the pronouncement of the award 
is communicated to the parties and it is accordingly pronounced on 
the date previously announced by the Court, even if, the parties, are 
not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. 
c 
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition D 
Officer and Another, AIR (1961) SC 1500, referred to. 
2.2. In the instant case, the High Court has not rejected the plea 
of the appellants that they came to know of the award only when 
compensation was paid to them in July, 1988. They had admittedly no 
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They had therefore filed the 
application under Section 18 of the Act on September 22, 1988 well 
within the period of limitation. The Reference Court recorded a finding 
in favour of the limitation. The Reference. Court recorded a finding 
in favour of the claimants but the High Court has reversed that finding 
without applying the principle laid down by this Court in the case of 
Raja Harish Chandra. Moreover, it is found from the grounds of appeal 
filed before the High Court that the assertion of the claimants that they 
came to know of the declaration of the award only when compensation 
was being paid to them in July, 1988, has not even been challenged. 
Hence, the finding of the High Court that the application for reference 
under Section 18 of the Act was barred by limitation is set aside. 
However, since the appeals have not been disposed of on merit, the 
matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the appeals OR 
merit in accordance with law. 
E 
F 
G 
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The deputy Land Acquisition Officer H 
1194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and Anolh<fr. AIR (1961) SC 1500, referred to. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE' JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8818-8830 
of 2003. 
B 
Fro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.