SHAKUNTLA DEVI versus STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 02-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 144 
SHAKUNTLA DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2043 of2011) 
MARCH 02, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.18 - Land acquisition 
·proceedings taking long time and as a result, authorities proposing 
settlement of the compensation on negotiation - Negotiated award 
passed stating that land value is fixed on negotiation and appellant 
shall not be entitled for seeking any enhancement of market value 
uls.18 but appellant shall be entitled for market value for the 
structures and trees separately - Supplementary Negotiated award 
for building and trees fixed with a condition therein that valuation 
was negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits 
under the Act would be admissible over and above - The award 
further stated that it was enhanced in absentia and, therefore, notiee 
u!s.12(2) be issued to interest holders immediately - Claim for 
statutory benefits - High Court held that the writ petitioners having 
accepted the land value on negotiated settlement was not justified 
in seeking any statutory benefits - Held: Appellant had not accepted 
the award - Filing of writ petition before the expiry of six months 
from the date of the Negotiated award would also show that the 
appellant had taken steps to vindicate her grievances regarding 
insiifficiency of compensation by approaching High Court u!Art.226 
- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for doing 
complete justice, the appellant is given an opportunity to make a 
request for reference u/s.18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition 
Collector for enhancement of compensation and for all other original 
benefits in respect of the Supplementary Negotiated Award - If 
G such an application for reference is made before the Collector who 
passed the Award within four weeks, the same shall be referred to 
the Court of competent jurisdiction within a month thereafter and 
the said Reference Court shall dispose of the reference expeditiously 
and preferably with a period of six months thereafter. 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
144 
SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P. 
HELD: 1. The appellant-writ petitioner had not accepted 
the Award; if so, she would not have pursued the inadequacy of 
compensation before the High Court in the writ petition. Section 
18 of the Act entitles interested persons who had not accepted 
the Award to seek a reference to the Court. No doubt, as per 
Section 18(2) of the Act, the reference should be made within 
six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the _Collector 
under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the 
date of Collector's Award, whichever period shall first expire. 
The Negotiated Supplementary Award seems to have been made 
145 
A 
B 
on 18.12.2009 and the writ petition was filed on 20.05.2010. 
That apart, in the State of H.P., the Collector is entitled to extend · C 
the period for receipt of the application for reference beyond six 
weeks and upto six mo:mths, in case he is satisfied that the 
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the 
application. [Para 8] [147-H; 148-A-C] 
2. This is an Award announced in absentia and there is a 
direction to serve notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is also 
seen from the counter affidavit filed by the State before the High 
Court that the amount awarded, as per the Supplementary 
Negotiated Award, had been received by the appellant only on 
01.06.2010,_ after filing the writ petition before the High Court 
on 20.05.2010. Thus, it is _clear that the appellant had not accepted 
the Award, there being an objection with regard to amount_ of 
compensation, particularly regarding statutory benefits. It was 
specifically stipulated in the .Negotiated Award pertaining to the 
land, announced on 11.09.2008 that " ..... The interested persons 
are not entitled for seeking enhancement of market value of 
land under Section 18 of the Act ... ". Such a stipulation is 
conspicuously absent in the Supplementary Negotiated Award 
<in the structures and trees announced on 18.12.2009, impugned 
before the High Court in writ petition. Filing the writ petition 
before the expiry of six months from the date of the Negotiated 
Award, would also show that the appellant had taken steps to 
vindicate her grievance regarding insufficiency of compensation, 
by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of In

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