Dismissed

Ratiya v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012RFA/7967/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal against an award upholding the Collector's finding that a landowner's reference was barred by limitation. The court interpreted Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on Supreme Court precedents. It held that since compensation was received by the appellant on 5.12.2007, he had knowledge of the award, and his objection filed o

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the impugned award was upheld, and the accompanying applications were dismissed. No interference with the court below's order.

Ratiya Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

R.F.A. No. 7967 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RFA No. 7967 of 2011 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision: 3.5.2012

Ratiya

..... Appellant

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....... Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶12

Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.5.2011, whereby the learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the land owner on account of delay as well as on merits. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.

¶15

Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of village Balu, Hadbast No. 20, Tehsil and District Kaithal, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Kapil Muni Minor, vide notification dated 4.5.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 8,000,00/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to Additional District Judge, Kaithal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector and dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner before this court.

¶16

R.F.A. No. 7967 of 2011 [2]

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the learned court below that the reference filed by the land owner was time barred is totally erroneous. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period expires first. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.5.2007 and he received the amount of compensation under protest on 5.12.2007. The submission is that the appellant is illiterate person. He has no knowledge about the intricacies of the law. Though the amount of compensation was paid to him on 5.12.2007, but he was not having the knowledge of the passing of the award by the Collector. When he came to know about the passing of the award by the Collector, he immediately filed the objection on 17.2.2009, which were within limitation of six months as enumerated under Section 18 (2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-

¶19

book.

¶20

The facts, which are evident from the record are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.5.2007. The Collector announced the award on 25.10.2007 and the appellant received the amount of compensation on 5.12.2007. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellant on 17.2.2009.

¶21

In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellant are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from the date the appellant claimed that he received the amount of compensation or from the date he had the knowledge of announcement of the award, which he has not disclosed any where before the court below. It is admitted case of

¶22

R.F.A. No. 7967 of 2011 [3]

¶23

the appellant that he has received the amount of compensation on 5.12.2007 as per award announced by the Collector, the date which can be termed as date of knowledge.

¶24

Section 18 of the Act is extracted below:

¶25

“ 18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

¶26

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

¶27

Provided that every such application shall be made,-

¶28

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

¶29

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.”

¶30

The aforesaid section provides that in case any person interested does not accept the award, he may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred to the court. The objections can be regarding measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The application should contain the grounds on which the award is objected to. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides for the period in which the objections could be filed. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case a person is present or represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed within six months from the date of the Collector's award. Clause (b) provides that in other cases, the objections can be filed

¶31

R.F.A. No. 7967 of 2011 [4]

¶32

within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period expires first.

¶33

In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs Sham Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996) 9 SCC 414, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether limitation provided for under Section 18 (2) of the Act for filing objections can be extended and it was answered in the negative. Paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof are extracted below:

¶34

“17. It is to be remembered that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) was enacted prescribing the limitation to exercise the power under Sections 4, 6 and 11 and also excluded the time occupied due to stay granted by the courts. Taking cognizance of the limitation prescribed in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the provisions of the Limitation Act were not expressly extended. Though Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is available, and the limitation in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 may be treated to be special law, in the absence of such an application by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984), the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the court and the Collector/LAO performs only statutory duties under the Act, including one while making reference under Section 18. It is difficult to construe that the Collector/LAO while making reference under Section 18, as statutory authority still acts as a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶35

Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1). Therefore,

¶36

R.F.A. No. 7967 of 2011 [5]

¶37

Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to subsection (2) of Section 18. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

¶38

The same view was followed in State of Karnataka vs Laxuman, (2005) 8 SCC 709.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, that in case the land owner or his representative was present at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed within six weeks from that date. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended. In the present case, the appellant had received the amount of compensation on 5.12.2007 in terms of award dated 25.10.2007 announced by the Collector.

¶40

If the facts of the present case are considered, the admitted position available on record is that the land owner had the knowledge of the award on 5.12.2007. The objections were admittedly filed on 17.2.2009, which were clearly beyond the period of six weeks from the date of knowledge of the award. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned court below holding the objections to be beyond limitation.

¶41

Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no case for interference with the impugned award can be made out. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed.

¶42

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶43

3.5.2012 vs

Ratiya v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratiya v. State of Haryana 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs Punjab Khadi Mandal

Kailash Rani @ Kailash Wanti and Ors. Vs Mamta Rani and Ors.

Anjana Vs Mamta Rani and Ors.

Shamey Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana Thru Collector, Kaithal & Ors.

Shanti and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rameshwar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.