LexTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER versus SHIVABAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
v.
SHIVABAI AND ORS.
APRIL 4, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 4(1 ), 11, 12(2) and
18(2)-Proviso :
A
B
La11d Acquisition-Persons entitled to seek reference in Land Acquisi-
C
tion Proceedings-Completion of enquiry under Section I I-Award made 011
same date--Compe11sation-Wiit by Respondents 1 and 2-Plea that they had
filed application under protest but no reference was made-Enquiry whether
notice was se1ved and award served 011
claimantl~ Thereafter reference
made-Rejection of application seeking remissio11 of reference-Application
for impleadment of respo11dent 3 allowed-Reference answered by enhancing D
the compensation-On Appeal Division Bench enhanced the compensa-
tio1r-Appeal before Supreme Coun-Held-it is not necessary that the award
or its copy should be served on the claimant along with notice under section
12(2) of the Act-If the palties are not present 011 the date the award came
to be passed, then Collector shall give immediate 11otice of his award-The E
limitatio11 begins to 1w1 from the date of the notice as per proviso to Sectio11
18(2)-The date of the award and the date of the receipt of the compe11satio11
was incidentally the same date-{]11der these circumstances, it must be
presumed that they were present. 011 the date when the award was made and
the compensation was received without any protest-{}nder these circumsta11-
ces, they are 11ot entitled to seek any reference--Claima11ts who receive the F
compensation u11der protest a11d who make application under Section 18(1),
alone are e11titled to seek a refere11ce-171ird pa1ties, who have been im-
pleaded have 1w 1ight to claim higher compensation by circumventi11g the
process of reference under Section 18, Under these circumstances, the refer-
ence itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3002 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A.S. No. 1052 of 1992.
H
647
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 3 S.C.R.
A
G. Prabhakar for the Appellant.
B
C. Sitaramiah, Vijay Kumar and Mrs. Sangeeta Kumar for the,!'
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment made by the
C Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on April 15, 1994 in
A.S. No. 1052/92.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the 'Act') was published on August 19 1965, acquiring large
D tracts of land comprised in several villages for submersion due to Sriram
Sagar Project. The land in question to an extent of 206 acres 16 gunthas
of the land is situated in the village Nallur in Nizamabad District. Posses-
sion thereof was taken on November 22, 1965. After completion of the
enquiry under Section 11, the award came to be made on the same date.
E The compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 per acre for the dry lands and at
the rate of Rs 430 per acre for dry black cotton lands was awarded and
paid. A writ petition was filed in 1986 by two person, i.e. respondent Nos.
1 and 2, claiming that they had filed an application under protest, but
reference under Section 18 was not made. The learned single judge
directed an enquiry whether notice under Section 12(2) and the award
F
were served on the claimants as per the law then existing; if notice was not
served, to take necessary action of reference. In writ appeal, it was con-
firmed. Thereafter, reference was made in O.P. No. 198/90. An application.
IA. No. 285/91, was filed seeking remission of the reference on the ground
that it was obtained fraudulently with the connivance of the Land Acquisi-
G tion Officer and was barred by limitation. The Additional District Judge
by order dated October 23, 1991 dismissed the application. An IA. was
filed for impleading other persons, respondent Nos. 3 to 103, and the
application was allowed by the District Judge. On the basis there0f, the
reference was answered by enhancing the compensation ranging between
H Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 2,000 per acre. On appeal, the Division Bench in the
LAND ACQN. OFFICER v. SHIVABAI
649
impugned judgment has confirmed the enhanced compensation. Thus this A
appeal, by special leave.
When the matter had come up before us, we issued notice to the
counsel for the State to produce the AcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.