LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus SH. SATINDER BIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ / STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. SH. SATINDER BIR SINGH FEBRUARY 22, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 11, 12, 18-Notice under S.12(2)-Whether should contain all the details of the award-Held : No. A B In this appeal, the question that arose for consideration was whether C the High Court was right in its conclusion that the notice under s.12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act should contain all the details of the award. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order, this Court D HELD : 1 • ..:. is not necessary that the notice under S.12 of the Land Acquisition Act should contain all the details of the award including his consideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as opined by the Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent· that the E interested person should immediately' make the reference application on his receiving compensation under s. 31. The receipt of the amount and making the reference application are not simultaneous. The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by s. 18(2) does not depend on· the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begilfs' to operate from the moment the notice under s.12(2) is recdved ot as envisaged bys. 18(2). (258-F-G] F 2. The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The area acquired was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the Judge G was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain all the details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has been determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limitation did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of !Jl.e notice and thereby the rejection of the application was not legal. (258-H, 259-A] H 255 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 1978. From the Judgment and E>rder dated 25.4.77 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 512 of 1973. B G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansal for the Appellants. AP. Mohanty and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge C of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated April 25, 1977 made in Civil Revision Application No. 512/73. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the controversy. They are : Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for D short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on 15.1.1970 acquiring 40 kanals 17 marlas of land situated in Mohali village, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar in Punjab for public purpose. The Collector made bis award under s.11 of the Act on 1.3.1970. He issued notice under s.12(2) and it was received by the respondent 0n 22.9.1970. He appeared and received compens::.tion under protest on 29.9.1970. Thereafter, he made an applica- E tfon under s.18 on 21.1.1971 seeking reference to the Civil Court. The Collector by his proceedings dated 12.1.1973 had rejected the application as being barred by limitation. Calling in question the order, the respondent filed revision in the High Court under s.115 provided under the local Amendment Act, 1954 by sub-s. (3) of s.18 of the Act. The High Court allowed the revision holding that though the respondent had received the F notice on September 22, 1970, the notice did not contain all the details as to how market value of the land was evaluated; the respondent was not in a position to know the deter~ation of the compensation for making an application for reference under s.18. Therefore, it is not a proper notice and the limitation prescribed under s.18(2) has no applica~on. G The only question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that the notice issued under s.12(2) should contain all the details of the award.· Section 11 of the Act contemplates that while making the award the Collector needs to determine (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed H for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation amoiig , \., ' ..... . ./ / STA1EOFPB.v. S.B.SINGH 257 all the persons known or believed t~ be interested in the land, of whom, A or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.