STATE OF PUNJAB versus MST. QAISAR BEGUM AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 11-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
1 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
971 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
ti. 
MST. Q.AISAR JEHAN BEGUM' AND ANR. 
(S; K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR and N. RAJAGOPA.LA. 
AYYANGAR, jJ.) 
Li.mitation-hand Acquisition Act, (1 of i8U), a. 18. 
On October 25, 1953, the Collector made an award in 
respect of land bekmging to the respondents, who were evacuees, 
in the Distric: of Gui gaon. The respondents were not notified 
about the acquisition and they were not present at the time of 
.the award. 
The respondents filed an application before the Collector 
stating that they came to know of the contents of the Award 
only on July 22, 1955. when they received the compensation 
amount and that the amount of Rs. 96/· pe1 acre as given in 
the Award was too low and that the market value of the land 
was about Rs. 600/· per acre. The Collector accepted the 
application and referred the matter under s. 18 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon. 
The Senior Subordinate Judge held that the application for a 
reference which was made on September 30, 1955, was filed 
beyond the period of limitation prescribed by s. 18 and dis-
charged the reference. The matter was taken to the High 
Court in revision by the respondents and the High Court 
accepted the revision ::etition and direc1ed the Subordinate 
Judge to deal with the reference on merits, on the view that 
the civil court was precluded from going into questions other 
than the matters specified in s. 18 of the Act. The High Court 
did not go into the correctness of the decision on merits on the 
question of limitation. On appeal by special leave. 
Held, assuming that the civil court could go into the 
quntion of limitation, the respondents who were entitled to 
notice under s. 12, sub-s. 2, of the Act had admittedly received 
no notice nor were they present at the time when the Award 
was made and therefore . neither cl. (a) nor the first part of 
cl. (b) of the proviso to s. 18 applied. 
The scheme of the Act roquires that before applying for 
reference under s. 18, the parties concerned must have know-
ledge of the essential contents of the award and hi the present 
1969 
Fe~""'''• 11. 
1963 
Stal1 of Plllljab 
v. 
Mst. QoUar Jlhan 
· 81gum 
Das, J. 
!li2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
case the petitioners though they had come to know of the award 
earlier did not know the e;•ential content< of the award till 
July 22, 1955, therefore, the period of six month< contemplated 
in the scrond part of cl. (b) of s. 18 would commence from 
that date and the application for reference was within time. 
Raja Hamh Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land 
Acquisition Offir.<r, (1962] 1 S. C.R. 676, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JumSDICT!ON : Civil Appeal 
No. 592 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 16, 1959, of the Punjab 
High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 2tl8 
of 1958. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for 
the appellant. 
S. P. Sinha and Saukat llu,ssain, for respon-
dent No. 2. 
1963. February 11. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
• 
S. K. DAS, J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave from the judgment and order dated November 
16, 1959 passed by the Punjab High Court on an 
application in revision in respect of an order dated 
December l i, 1957 by 
which the learned Senior 
Subordinate Judge of Gurgaon held that a reference 
by the Collector of Gurgaon under s. 18 of the Land 
Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) was incompetent by 
reason of the circumstance that it was made on an 
apelication filed beyond time. 
The appellant before 
us 1s the State of Punjab and the respondents are two 
ladies being related as mother and daughter. We 
shall presently state the relevant facts, but before 
we do so it is necessary to say that the only point on 
which the High Court disposed of the application in 
revision before it made by the respondents herein, 
was whether the civil court to which a reference is 
• 
•. 
.. 
. ' 
I 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
973 
made by the Collector under s. 18 of the Land 
Acquisition Act on an application filed beyond time, 
can reject the reference on the ground that the 
reference made is incompetent. On this point there 
is a conflict of judicial opinion. In disposing of the 
application in revision the learne<I single Judge who 
heard it proceeded on the basis that he was bound 
by the Division Bench decision of the same High 
Court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu ('),
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.