THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR. versus SHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 09-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY 
(LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR. 
v. 
· SHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Laws : Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 11 and IS-Ac-
quisition of Land-Award-Application to the Collector/LAO for reference to 
C the Cowt-Rejection of the application on the ground of limitation-Validity 
of 
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5-Extension of time limit under ce1tain 
circumstances-Application of the provision in relation to a Court-Meaning 
of the expression "Court"-Status of the Collect01~LAo-Held : Collec-
D tor/LAO, being a statut01y auth01ity and not a Court, Section 5 of the 
Limitation Act not applicable-Hence, application for reference is ba1Ted by 
Limitation under Section 18(1) of the Act. 
E 
F 
The Government acquired land for public purpos~ under Section 4 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) 
made his award under Section 11. The respondents were present at the 
time of the award. They applied for reference under Section 18. The LAO 
rejected the application holding that it was barred by limitation, i.e., 
beyond six weeks from the date of the award. High Court held that Section 
5 of the Limitation Act applied to the proceedings. It condoned the delay 
and directed the LAO to make the reference. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, 
application for reference has to be made within six weeks from the date of 
G the award in cases where the applicant was present either in person or 
through counsel at the time of making of the award by the Collector/LAO. 
[371-D]) 
2. It is the duty of the Court to see that the statutory conditions laid 
down in Section 18 including the one relating to limitation, have been 
H complied with. Only a valid reference gives jurisdiction to the Court. 
366 
J-
.. 
' 
.OFFICER ON SPL. DUTY (LAND ACQN.) v. SHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC. 
367 
Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, [1979) 2 SCC 572, relied A 
on. 
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Satinder Bir Singh, [1995) 3 SCC 330 
referred to. [370-H; 371-A-B] 
3. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for extension B 
of the period of limitation in certain cases on showing sufficient cause 
applies only to a Court. The Collector/LAO is not a Court. He acts as a 
statutory authority. The Act specifically maintains a distinction between 
the Collector and the Court. [369-G; 375-C; A] 
Nityananda M. Joshi & Ors. v. Life Insurance Cmporation of India & 
Ors., [1969) 2 SCC 199; Smt. Sushi/a Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad & Ors., 
[1976) 1 SCC 361 and Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transpmt Appellate Tribunal, 
UP & Ors., AIR (1976) SC 2161, relied on. 
c 
P. V. Gadgil & Ors. v. P. V. Deshpande & Anr., AIR (1983) Born 342; D 
Sp!. Dy. Collector Land Acquisition, Anantapur v. Kodandaramacharlu, AIR 
(1965) AD 25;Jokkim Femandez v.Amina Kunhi Umma, (1973) Kerala Law 
Times 138 and Commissioner of Agricultural, Income Tax v. TR.I., (1981) 
KL T 398, referred to. 
4.1. Section 18 of the Act may be treated to be special law prescribing E 
time limitations. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for 
extension of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the 
Act. [375-A-D] 
Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, AIR (1964) SC 260, relied on. 
4.2. In the instant case, applications for reference are barred by 
limitation and stand rejected. [375-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3234 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.92 of the Gujarat High 
Court in C.A. No. 2296 of 1990. 
Anip Sachthey for the Appellants. 
Vimal Dave for the Respondents. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted. 
A short but an important question of law arises for decision in these 
appeals. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894(1 of 1894) (for short, the "Act") published in the State Gazette on 
February 20, 1984, Government acquired the land for public purpose. The 
Land Acquisition Officer (for short the "LAO") made his award under 
Section 11 on February 28, 1989. The respondents were present at the time 
when the award was announced. On June 10, 1989 they applied for refer-
ence under Section 18. After giving an opportunity· of hearing, by order 
dated January 9, 1990, the LAO rejected the application fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.