Allowed

Dattatraya Sansthan v. the State of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2019FA/327/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the limitation period for filing a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 begins upon receipt of the certified copy of the Award. The court set aside the lower court's finding that the application was time-barred, allowing the appeal and enhancing compensation.

What did the court decide?

The reference application is held to be within the period of limitation; enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,000 per hectare is granted along with statutory benefits and interest.

Dattatraya Sansthan Vs the State of Mah. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

FA 327/2004

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.327 OF 2004

¶5

Shri Dattatraya Sanstha,
Datta Bardi, Hadgaon,
through Treasurer,
Narayan Bapurao Deshmukh,
age 72 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon,
Dist. Nanded. = Appellant
 (Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS

¶6

1. The State Of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Nanded.

¶7

2. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Building & Communication, Nanded.

¶8

3.The Principal,
Industrial Training Institute,
Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon,
Dist. Nanded. = Respondents
 (Orig.Resp.)
-----

¶9

Mr.ND Narwadkar, Adv. h/for Shri M.V.Deshpande,Advocate
for Appellant/s;

¶10

Mr. SJ Salgare, AGP for Respondent-State

¶11

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 1st February, 2019

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

1. The claimant in LAR No.1/1994 decided by

¶14

the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at

¶15

Nanded on 17th April, 2002, has preferred the

¶16

present appeal against the said judgment.

¶17

FA 327/2004

¶18

(2)

¶19

2.Agricultural land bearing Survey No.
188/2, admeasuring 6 hectares and 3 Ares, situated
at Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded, belonging
to the appellant-claimant, which is a charitable

¶20

trust, was acquired for the establishment of
Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at Hadgaon.

¶21

3.Notification under Section 4 of the Land

¶22

Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as
the Act) in that regard was published in the
official gazette on 20th October, 1988 and Award
under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on
20th October, 1991. Special Land Acquisition
Officer had offered the compensation @ Rs. 30,500/-
per hectare. Dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation so offered, the claimant preferred an
application under Section 18 of the Act, which was
adjudicated by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Nanded. The said court is hereinafter
referred to as the Reference Court.

¶23

4.The claimant had claimed the compensation

¶24

@ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. In order to
substantiate the claim so raised by it, the

¶25

FA 327/2004

¶26

(3)

¶27

claimant had brought on record eight sale
instances. The Reference Court, after having
considered the oral and documentary evidence
brought on record, though held the claimant
entitled for the enhanced compensation @ Rs.
35,000/- per hectare, ultimately dismissed the
Reference Application being not filed within
period of limitation. Aggrieved by, the claimant
has preferred this appeal.

¶28

5.Shri Narwadkar, learned counsel appearing

¶29

for appellant claimant submitted that the Reference
Application was filed by the claimant well within
period of limitation, however, the Reference Court
has mis-interpreted the provision as about the
limitation in the Act, and has wrongly held the
Reference Application to be barred by limitation.
The learned counsel further submitted that notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued in the
name of Raigir Maharaj, who was not alive on the
said date and had died much prior to that.

¶30

6.The learned counsel further submitted

¶31

that thereafter an application was filed, seeking

¶32

FA 327/2004

¶33

(4)

¶34

correction in the Award passed under Section 11 of
the Act and the Award was corrected on 30th March,
1993. The learned counsel further submitted that on
31st March, 1993, amount of compensation was paid
to the claimant trust which was accepted under
protest. The learned counsel further submitted
that since the copy of the Award was not supplied
to the claimant, an application was preferred by
the claimant seeking certified copy of the Award on
13th April, 1993. The learned counsel further
submitted that certified copy was received to the
claimant trust on 17th March, 1993 and within a
week thereafter, i.e. 26th May, 1993, the claimant
filed the application under Section 18 of the Act.
The learned counsel submitted that since the
claimant has filed the appeal within a week after
receipt of the certified copy of the Award, the
application filed by the claimant under Section 18
of the Act was well within the period of
limitation.

¶35

7.The learned counsel submitted that the

¶36

facts that i)correction in the Award was made on on
30th March, 1993; ii) Copy of the Award was not

¶37

FA 327/2004

¶38

(5)

¶39

supplied to the claimant along with notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act; iii) that the application
was made by the applicant seeking certified copy of
the said Award on 13th April, 1993 and it was
provided to the claimant on 17th May, 1993, have
been completely ignored by the Reference Court.
The learned counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court has also failed in appreciating
that the notice under section 12(2) of the Act,
allegedly issued on 20th April, 1992, was issued in
the name of Raigir Amrutgir, who was not alive on
the said date. The learned counsel submitted that
the Reference Court has computed the limitation
without considering the aforesaid facts and has
wrongly held the application filed by the claimant
trust to be time barred. The learned counsel, in
the circumstances, prayed for setting aside the
finding recorded by the Reference Court on the
point of limitation and consequently to hold that

¶40

the Reference Application filed by the claimant
trust was well within period of limitation.

¶41

8.The learned counsel further submitted
that the Reference Court has also failed in

¶42

FA 327/2004

¶43

(6)

¶44

determining the market value appropriately. The
learned counsel submitted that, though total eight
sale instances were brought on record by the

¶45

claimant, the Reference Court has failed in
appreciating the market value received to the lands
which were the subject matter in all those sale

¶46

instances. The learned counsel submitted that
considering the sale instances brought on record
the Reference Court must have determined the market

¶47

value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per
hectare and must have enhanced the amount of
compensation accordingly. The learned counsel,

¶48

therefore, prayed for enhancing the amount of
compensation by determining the market value of Rs.
1,00,000/- per hectare of the land acquired of the
claimant trust.

¶49

9.Shri Salgare, learned AGP appearing for

¶50

the respondents, supported the impugned Judgment

¶51

and Award. The learned AGP submitted that the
Reference Court has passed a well-reasoned order on

¶52

the point of limitation as well as on the point of
enhancement in the amount of compensation and no
interference is required in the Judgment and Award

¶53

FA 327/2004

¶54

(7)

¶55

impugned in the present appeal.

¶56

10.I have given due consideration to the

¶57

submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned AGP for the State. I have
perused the impugned judgment as well as the
evidence on record. The material on record reveals
that the Award under Section 11 of the Act itself
was passed in the name of a dead person and notice
dated 20th April, 1992, issued under Section 12(2)
of the Act, was also issued in the said name. It
is the specific case of the claimant trust that the
application, along with revenue record, was made to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who carried
out necessary enquiry and eventually amended the
Award on 30th March, 1993, and on the same day the
claimant trust received the amount of compensation
under protest. As has been observed by the
Reference Court in para 4 of its judgment, the
claimant filed the application seeking certified
copy of the Award on 13th April, 1993, and it was
supplied on 17th May, 1993. It is not in dispute

¶58

that the application under Section 18 of the Act
was filed by the claimant on 26th May, 1993.

¶59

FA 327/2004

¶60

(8)

¶61

11.The facts, as aforesaid, have been duly
proved by the claimant trust. The Reference Court
however has discarded the said evidence. In para
80 of the impugned judgment, the Reference Court
has recorded a finding that it should be presumed
that the claimant got the knowledge of the Award,
passed under Section 11 of the Act, on 30th March,
1993, the date on which the compensation was paid
to the claimant and was accepted by it. The
Reference Court has also observed that the
claimant, by getting corrected /amended the Award
on 30th March, 1993came on record and received

¶62

the amount of compensation on the same day and in
the circumstances, was estopped from taking a plea
that trustees were not aware of passing of the
Award under Section 11 of the Act. The Reference

¶63

Court has computed the period of limitation from
30th March, 1993, observing that when the claimant
accepted the amount of compensation on the said

¶64

date, it has to be held that the manager/trustee of
the claimant trust got knowledge of passing of the
Award under Section 11 of the Act on the said date.

¶65

12.It is, however, difficult to agree with

¶66

FA 327/2004

¶67

(9)

¶68

the observations so made and the conclusion so

¶69

recorded by the Reference Court. It was the
specific contention of the claimant that he applied
for the certified copy on 13th April, 1993 and

¶70

received the same on 17thMay, 1993. The

¶71

contention so raised by the claimant trust has
remained unrebutted. Nothing has been brought on
record by the respondents showing that the copy of
the Award was supplied or given to the claimant
trust before 17th May, 1993. No such material is
brought on record by the respondents showing that
the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was
accompanied by the copy of the Award. On the
contrary, as noted above, notice under Section
12(2) of the Act was indisputably issued in the
name of dead person. It is also a matter of record

¶72

that thereafter, correction was made in the Award
on 30th March, 1993. The respondents have also not
disputed the fact that the claimant applied for the
certified copy of the Award on 13th April, 1993 and
the certified copy was provided to the claimant on
17th May, 1993. In absence of any contrary
evidence on record, it has to be held that the
claimant became aware of the contents of the Award

¶73

FA 327/2004

¶74

(10)

¶75

only after obtaining the certified copy of the
Award.

¶76

13. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Premji Nathu Vs. State of Gujrath – (2012) 5 SCC 250 has held that, “ copy of the Award under Section 11 of the Act is essential for effective exercise of right vested in the claimant to seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Act.” Relying on the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex court in its recent judgment in the case of Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Collector – (2018) 8 SCC 266 , has reiterated that the claimant can be said to be aware as about the contents of the Award only after receiving the copy of the Award or service of the copy of the Award on

¶77

him. In the said case, similar contention was
raised by the appellant therein that, copy of the
Award was not supplied to him along with notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act and he became aware
of the contents of the Award only after obtaining
the certified copy of the Award. The contention so
raised by the appellant therein was accepted by the
Hon'ble Apex court.

¶78

FA 327/2004

¶79

(11)

¶80

14.In view of the law laid down by the

¶81

Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid two judgments,
I have no hesitation in holding that in the present
matter, the claimant became aware about the
contents of the Award only after obtaining the
certified copy of the Award on 17th May, 1993.
Since the appellant filed the reference application
under Section 18(1) of the Act within one week
after obtaining the certified copy of the Award,
the Reference Application, filed under Section
18(1) of the Act, has to be held to have been filed
within the stipulated period of limitation. The
Reference Court has manifestly erred in holding
that the claimant did not file the Reference
Application within the period of limitation. The
finding so recorded by it deserves to be set aside
and as I noted herein above, it has to be held that
the Reference Application was filed by the
appellant claimant well within the stipulated
period of limitation.

¶82

15.It is the further contention of the

¶83

appellant claimant that the amount of compensation,
as has been enhanced by the Reference Court, is

¶84

FA 327/2004

¶85

(12)

¶86

insufficient and inadequate. The Reference Court
in the impugned judgment, after having considered

¶87

the sale instances brought on record by the
appellant claimant, has determined the market value
of the acquired land @ Rs.35,000/- and has
accordingly directed enhancement in the amount of
compensation. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant claimant, the Reference
Court has failed in properly appreciating the sale
instances brought on record, because of which the

¶88

market value of the subject land has been
determined by Reference Court on lower side. The
learned counsel submitted that the Reference Court
has rejected the sale instance at Exhibit-136 and
the other sale instances for wrong reasons. The
learned counsel submitted that though the other
sale instances were pertaining to small pieces of
lands, the land involved in sale instance at
Exh.136, was admeasuring 1 hectare and 51 Ares and

¶89

was sold for the consideration of Rs. 1,51,000/-,

¶90

i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The learned
counsel submitted that the market value of the

¶91

subject land must have been, therefore, determined
at par with the said land, i.e. @ Rs.1,00,000/- per

¶92

FA 327/2004

¶93

(13)

¶94

hectare.

¶95

16.Submission made as above on behalf of the

¶96

appellant is however difficult to be accepted.
Material on record reveals that the land which was
the subject matter of the sale deed at Exh.136 was
abutting to road having large frontage and was
fully irrigated. There was a well as well as the
electric motor and pipe line in the said land. It
is thus evident that the market value received to
the said land was not liable to be received to the
land involved in the present matter, it being a
non-irrigated land situated at the interior part.
It appears to me that the Reference Court has
rightly determined the market value of the subject
land @ Rs.35,000/- per hectare. No case is made

¶97

out by the appellant claimant so as to grant any
further enhancement in the amount of compensation
so determined by the Reference Court.

¶98

17.In the result, following order is passed,
-
ORDER

¶99

i.The finding recorded by the
Reference Court holding the Reference

¶100

FA 327/2004

¶101

(14)

¶102

Application to have been filed beyond
period of limitation is set aside. The
Reference Application is held to have
been filed within the period of
limitation and stands allowed in the
following terms, -

¶103

(A)The appellant trust is held
entitledfortheenhanced
compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per hectare
in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 30,000/-
per hectare;

¶104

(B)The appellant trust is also

¶105

held entitled for the statutory
benefits under Section 23(1A) and
23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 on the enhanced amount of
compensation;

¶106

(C)The appellant trust is held
entitled for the interest on the

¶107

FA 327/2004

¶108

(15)

¶109

enhanced amount of compensation under

¶110

Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from
the date of passing of the Award
under Section 11 of the Act, i.e.
from 20.10.1991;

¶111

(D)Award be drawn accordingly;

¶112

(E)Deficit court fee, if any,

¶113

be recovered from the appellant
claimant;

¶114

ii.The appeal stands allowed in the
aforesaidterms.Pendingcivil

¶115

application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶116

(P.R.BORA)
 JUDGE

¶117

bdv/

Dattatraya Sansthan v. the State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Sansthan v. the State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaynendraprasad Deviprasad Shukla. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

State of Maha Vs Arjun Sopan Kungar and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Ramchandra Ganpat Ghawade

The Lasalgaon Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs Vijay Nivruti Dighe and Others

The Chief Ex. Officer, Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi, Ahmednagar Vs Nirmala Kundanmal Lunawat and Ors.

Murari Purushottam Tapaswi and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Thr Its Authorized Officer, and Ors.