LexPREMJI NATHU versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1042 PREMJI NATHU V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 3430 of 2012) APRIL 09, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.18 - Making of C reference by Collector to the Court - Limitation period - Acquisition proceedings - Award of compensation - Notice issued by Collector to appellant-land owner u!s. 12(2) on 22.2.1985 - Copy of award not annexed with the notice - Subsequently, certified copy of award obtained by land owners D - On 8. 4. 1985, application uls. 18 filed before the Collector for making reference to Court for awarding higher compensation - Reference court declined to give relief on the ground that application u/s. 18 was time barred - High Court upheld the decision of reference court - On appeal, held: If the land owner E is not present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of making of award then the application for reference has to be made within six weeks of the receipt of notice uls. 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire - Along with the notice F issued u/s. 12(2), the land owner should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he may effectively exercise his right ul s.18(1) to seek reference to the Court - In the instant case, copy of the award was not sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an G application for seeking reference - Therefore, the award passed by reference court is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to pay enhanced compensation to the appellant @ Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land with an additional H 1042 PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT 1043 amount of Rs.2 per sq.meter-Appellant shall also be entitled A to other statutory benefits like solatium and interest - In exercise of power u/s. 142 of the Constitution, Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay enhanced compensation, solatium etc. even to those land owners who did not file appeals before the High Court and/or have not approached B Supreme Court by filing petitions u/Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 4.3.1982 in respect C of certain land including appellant's land and the declaration under Section 6(1) was published on 7 .10.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.110/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/- per Are for non-irrigated land. After passing of the award, the D Collector issued notice to the appellant under Section 12(2), which was received by him on 22.2.1985. Similar notices were received by the other landowners on 22.2.1985 and 23.2.1985. As the copy of the award was not annexed with the notice, the appellant obtained E certified copy thereof through his Advocate and then submitted an application dated 8.4.1985 to the Collector for making a reference to the Court for award of higher compensation with solatium and interest. In their claim petitions, the appellant and other landowners pleaded F that their land had irrigation facilities; that they were taking crops of groundnut, wheat, fodder etc. and they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are. The Reference Court held that the landowners are entitled to Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 G per Are for non-irrigated land with an additional amount of Rs.2 per square meter, but declined relief to the appellant and other landowners on the ground that the applications filed by them were beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A and three other landowners challenged the judgment of the Reference Court which was dismissed by the High Court. The question which arose for consideration in the 8 instant appeal was whether the application submitted by the appellant under Section 18(1) of the Act was barred by time and the Reference Court rightly refused to entertain his prayer for enhancement of the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. An analysis of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shows that by virtue of Section 12(1)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.