RAJA HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH versus THE DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 30-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

March 30. 
• 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
RAJA HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH 
v. 
THE DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Limitation-Land Acquisition-Award by Collector-Notice 
of award not given-Application for reference to Court-Time for 
making-Land Acq,.isition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), s. 18. 
Certain lands belonging to the appellant were compulsorily 
acquired. The Collector made an award with respect to the 
amount of compensation, signed and filed it in his office as 
required by s. 12(1) Land Acquisition Act on March 19, 1950. 
But no notice of the award, as required bys. 12(2), was given to 
the appellant. The appellaht came to know of the award on or 
about January 13, 1953. and on February 24, 1953, he filed an 
application under s. 18 requiring that the matter be referred for 
the determination of the Court. The proviso to s. 18 prescribes 
that in cases where a person was not present or represented at 
the time of the making of the award the application under s. 18 
shall be made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from 
the Collector under s. 12(2), or "within six months from the 
date of the award", whichever shall expire first. 
The appel-
lant's application was dismissed as time barred on the ground 
that it was made beyond six months of the date of the award. 
Held, that the application made by the appellant under 
s. 18 of the Act was not beyond time. The award of the Collec-
tor was not a decision but an offer of compensation on behalf of 
the Government to the owner of the property and it was not 
effective until it was communicated to the owner. The making 
of the award did not consist merely in the physical act of writ-
ing the award or signing it or filing it in the office of the Collec-
tor; it also involved the communication of the award to the 
owner either actually or constructively. 
Consequently, the 
expression "the date of the award" in the proviso to s. 18 
meant the date when the award was communicated to the 
owner or is known by him either actually or constructively. 
The application in the present case was made within six 
months of the date when the appellants came to know of 
the award and was within the period prescribed. 
Ezra v. The Secretary of State, (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 36 and 
Ezra v. Secretary of State for India, (1905) I.L.R. 32 Cal. 605, 
applied. 
Magdonald v. The Secretary of State for India in Council, 
(1905) 4 Ind. C. 914 and Hari Das Pal v. The Municipal Board, 
Lucknow, (1914) 22 Ind. C. 652, approved. 
, 
' 
' 
• 
.. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
677 
]ahangir Bemanji v. G. D. Gaikwad, A.LR. r954 Born. 4r9 
1961 
and State of Travancore-Cochin v. Narayani Amma Ponnamma, 
A.LR. r958 Kerala 272, disapproved. 
llaja I!ad;h 
0. A. 0. A. M. Muthia Chettiar v. The Commissioner of Income- Chandrn Raj Singh 
tax, Madras, LL.R. r951 Mad. 815, Annamalai Chetti v. Co!.]. G. n, n,;~t Land 
Cloeta, (r883) LL.R. 6 Mad. 189. and E. V. E. Swaminalhan 4 
. ·r Y 0 
Alias Chidambaram Pillai v. Letchmanan Chettiar, (1930) l.L.R. · cquisi ion 
'ffic<r 
53 Mad. 49r, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 
25 and 26of1958. 
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated 
August 7, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in 
Special Appeals Nos. 151 and 152 of 1955. 
0. B. Agarwala, A. N. Goyal and Mohan Lal Agar-
wala, for the appellant. 
Gopi Nath Dikshit and 0. P. Lal, for the respon-
dents. 
1961. 
March 30. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These two appeals arise outGaJcndrngadt.a• J. 
of two writ petitions filed by the appellant Raja 
Harish Chandra Raj Singh against the respondents 
the Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another in 
the Allahabad High Court and they were based on 
the same facts and asked for the same relief. Both 
of them raise a short common question of limitation 
the decision of which would depend upon the determi-
nation of the scope and effect of the provisions of the 
proviso to s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 
(hereafter called the Act). 
Since the facts in both the 
appeals are substantially the same we would refer to 
the facts in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1958. 
Tho deci-
sion in this appeal would govern the decision of the 
other appeal, Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1958. 
The appellant Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh was 
the proprietor of a village Beljuri in the District, 
of Nainital. It appears that proceedings for com-
puls
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.