RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEE versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 25-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEE 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
JULY 25, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894/West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) 
Act II of 1948: · 
' 
C 
Sections 18(2)/11. 12(2)/Section 4-Reference Applications made--
High Cowt holding that they were beyond limitation-Due to paucity of 
evidence controversy could not be decided-Matter refen·ed to Reference 
Co wt. 
Certain lands were acquired under the West Bengal (Requisition and 
D Acquisition) Act II of 1948 and the Collector made an award. Claimants 
preferred a reference and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation. The 
State went in appeal and the High Court noticed that the reference 
applications were made beyond limitation and that therefore the award of 
the Civil Court was held to be without jurisdiction. 
E 
In these appeals by certificate the appellant contended that when the 
F 
G 
H 
award was signed by the Collector on March 29, 1951, the service of notice 
under S.12 (2) of the Act on February 6, 1951 was not correct and so the 
Reference Applications made on June 26, 1951 and September 7, 1951 were 
valid and within limitation. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD :1. It is not desirable to decide this controversy without and 
factual foundation. The appropriate course would be that the Reference 
Court should go into the questions : [312-C] 
(1) What is the date on which the award as required under s.12 
read with S.11 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, in 
accordance with laws, and notice as required under s.12(2) were 
served on the claimants, if they are not present or appeared 
through counsel at the time of announcing the award under s. 11. 
[312-D] 
310 
-
... 
... 
R.K. BHATIACHARJEE v. STATE OFW.B . 
311 
(2) What are the dates on which the applications under s.18 came A 
to be filed by the claimants and to decide whether the applications 
are within the limitation as provided under the proviso to s.18(2) 
of the Act? (312-E] 
2. The matter is referred to the Reference Court, firstly to decide 
whether the Reference Applications were made within limitation in accord-
ance with law. If the finding is in favour of the claimant, then it has to 
decide the compensation according to law. Since it is an old matter the 
Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter within 6 months from 
the date of the receipt of the order. (312-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1807-
09/78. 
From the Judgment and decree dated the 28th September, 1977 of 
the High Court at Calcutta in appeal from original Decree Nos. 338 of 
1958, 339 of 1958 and 340 of 1958. 
P.S. Poti, Rathin Das, S: Murlidhar and S.K. Mehta for the Appel-
~~. 
. 
Tapas Ray and Ms. Aruna Banerjee for Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an appeal by Certificate under Article 133(1) against the 
Order of the High Court dated 28th September, 1977 of Calcutta High 
Court. 
The only question in this appeal is whether the Reference Applica-
tions made by the appellant were within the limitation as provided und((r 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the proviso to s.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'The 
Act'). The Notification under s.4 of the West Bengal (Requisition and 
Acquisition) Act II of 1948 was published on April 10, 1949. The record 
would indicate that the Land Acquisition Collector appears to have made G 
the award on March 22, 1951 and appears to have signed the same on 
March 29, 1951. We are not giving any finding in that behalf. Dissatisfied 
therewith the claimants sought for reference and the Civil Court enhanced 
the compensation. The State went in appeal to the High Court. The 
_ Division Bench noticed that the reference applications were made beyond H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
limitation and that therefore the award of the Civil Court was held to be 
without jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal by Certificate. 
Shri Poti, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that 
when the award itself was signed by the Collector on March 29, 1951, the 
service of the notice under s.12(2) of the Act on February 6, 1951 appears 
B 
to be not correct and so the Reference Applications which came to be 
made on June 26, 1951 and September 7, 1951 are valid and within 
limitation and the High Court was not justified in holding that Reference 
Application were beyond limitation. 
C 
Having considered the paucity of evidence in this behalf, we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.