MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL & OTHERSversusTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS

                        [2022] 18 S.C.R. 343                             343


        MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL & OTHERS                               A
                                  v.
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
               OFFICER & OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9004 of 2022)                       B
                       DECEMBER 12, 2022
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
        Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 18(2) – Reference to court –
Acquisition proceedings – Challenge to, by land owners which ended       C
on the dismissal of the special leave petition in 2013 – Thereafter
pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, while dismissing
the writ petition, within six months from the date of dismissal of the
special leave petition, the landowners filed reference application
u/s. 18 – Dismissed by the reference court as also the High Court        D
on the ground of limitation – On appeal, held: On a fair reading of
the judgment passed by the High Court, the observations made that
it is too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy
of the compensation, those observations are to be read while
considering the prayer of the appellants challenging the acquisition
proceedings – It appears that the acquisition was also challenged        E
on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate – Thus, the
order passed by the High Court as well as the reference court
dismissing the writ petition/reference u/s. 18 as barred by limitation
is quashed and set aside – Matter remitted to the reference court to
decide the reference on merits.                                          F
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 The reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed as barred by limitation
having been filed beyond the period of six months, specified in
Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has been confirmed by           G
the High Court. However, it is required to be noted that the
respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged
the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section
12(2) of the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special
leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The             H
                                 343
344           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     reference applications were filed on 1.7.2013. Though in the writ
      petition, the award under Section 12(2) of the Act was challenged
      on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation and
      though the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said
      writ petition, however thereafter reserved liberty in favour of
      the appellants-original landowners to pursue such remedy as may
B
      be available to them for enhancement of compensation or any
      other relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that
      liberty, the appellants-original landowners thereafter and after
      dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court filed
      reference. Therefore, in view of the liberty reserved by the High
C     Court in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may
      be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the
      reference application could not have been dismissed as barred
      by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within a period
      of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave
      petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition,
D
      which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original
      landowners whose valuable lands had been acquired challenged
      the acquisition proceedings. [Para 7][348-E-H; 349-A-B]
            1.2 As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and
      order passed by the High Court, the observations made that it is
E
      too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of
      the compensation, those observations are to be read while
      considering the prayer of the appellants challenging the
      acquisition proceedings. It appears that the acquisition was also
      challenged on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate.
F     Therefore, the High Court ought to have interfered with the
      decision of the reference Court dismissing the reference on the
      ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the matter to the
      reference Court to decide the reference on merits.The impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order
      passed by the reference court dismissing the writ petition/
G
      reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is quashed and set
      aside. The matter is remitted to the reference court to decide
      the reference on merits. [Para 8][349-C-E]


H
     MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL v. THE DEPUTY                                 345
               COLLECTOR & SLAO

      Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Another                   A
      v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others (1996) 9 SCC
      414 : [1996] 2 SCR 366; Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v.
      State of Maharashtra & Others (2005) 7 SCC 440 :
      [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1182 – distinguished.
                        Case Law Reference                                   B
[1996] 2 SCR 366                    distinguished            Para 9
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1182            distinguished           Para 9
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9004
of 2022.                                                                     C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2022 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 492 of 2022.
     Saju Jakob, Aarush Gangal, Raj Avatar Singh, Ms. Liza Arora,
Himanshu Shekhar, Ms. Arunima Sinh Jadaun, Advs. for the Appellants.
                                                                             D
     Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., K. R. Sasiprabhu, Raghav Shankar, Rishit
Badiani, Vishnu Sharma A. S., Udayaditya Baneyee, Prakhar Agarwal,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                         E
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 492/2022, by which the High
Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein
and has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Reference         F
Court, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) as barred by
limitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
      2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
       That a notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to be        G
issued for acquiring the lands in question for the construction of Gas
Compressor Station and necessary facilities under the Reliance Gas
Transportation, Surat on 30.07.2008. Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act 1894 was issued on 1.6.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector
declared the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 awarding
                                                                             H
346             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     compensation @ Rs. 69/- per square meter, vide award dated 6.4.2011.
      Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 with a copy of the award
      was issued to the landowners/appellants on 25.04.2011. The appellants
      filed Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012 before the High Court
      challenging notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 as well
      as award dated 6.4.2011. The Division Bench of the High Court vide
B
      judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 dismissed the said writ petition.
      However, while dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench reserved
      liberty with the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to
      them for enhancement of the compensation or any other relief to which
      they may be legally entitled.
C            2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      dated 7.8.2012 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the
      appellants approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
      No. CC 7382/2013. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 dismissed
      the special leave petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
D     That thereafter considering the liberty reserved in favour of the appellants
      reserved by the High Court while dismissing writ petition No. 1428/
      2012, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
      The Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation,
      having been filed beyond the period specified in Section 18(2) of the
      Act, 1894. The appellants preferred First Appeal No. 492/2022 before
E     the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
      has dismissed the said first appeal by observing that the Reference Court
      has rightly dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. The impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of
      the present appeal.
F            3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
      vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
      and more particularly when the appellants challenged the acquisition
      proceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the special
      leave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the date
G     of dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed reference
      under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to have
      entertained the same and ought to have considered the reference on
      merits.
            3.1 It is submitted that as such while dismissing Writ Petition No.
H     1428/2012, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically reserved
     MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL v. THE DEPUTY                                347
         COLLECTOR & SLAO [M. R. SHAH, J.]

liberty in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be         A
available to them for enhancement of compensation and thereafter when
the appellants filed reference for enhancement of the compensation, the
same could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
      3.2 It is submitted that therefore in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the time taken by the      B
appellants in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court and
thereafter before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings is
required to be excluded.
       3.3 It is submitted that the valuable lands of the appellants have
been acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and        C
the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 69/- per
square meter only. It is submitted that the lands acquired have been
situated in Surat and were very valuable lands. It is submitted that the
landowners are entitled to just compensation for the acquired lands.
      3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present       D
appeal.
      4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shyam Divan,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
       4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No. 3 has vehemently submitted that the time limit to file    E
reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of the
compensation would be six months from the date of receipt of the award
under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that in the present
case the appellants were served notice under Section 12(2) of the Act
with a copy of the award on 25.4.2011. It is submitted that therefore the   F
period of six months for making reference expired on 6.10.2011. It is
submitted that therefore the Reference Court rightly dismissed the
reference as barred by limitation.
       4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that even otherwise
                                                                            G
while preferring Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012, the appellants
did challenge the award also contending inter alia that the amount of
compensation awarded is on a lower side. It is submitted that while
dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench specifically observed
that the objections raised by the appellants before making of the award
were mainly related to the amount of compensation and they are not          H
348             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     stated to have applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading
      to the inference that either they were satisfied with the award of
      compensation or have missed the time limit for applying for reference
      under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that the Division Bench
      has further observed that therefore the petition and the prayers made
      therein are found to be an afterthought and not a bona fide grievance
B
      about any injustice. It is submitted that therefore also no interference of
      this Court is called for.
            4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of
      this Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition)
      & Another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others, (1996) 9 SCC 414
C     and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2005)
      7 SCC 440, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
             5. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing on behalf
      of the state has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court.
D
            6. Heard.
             7. The reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has been
      dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of
      six months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has
E     been confirmed by the High Court. However, it is required to be noted
      that the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged
      the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) of
      the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition by
      this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The reference applications were
      filed on 1.7.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in
F     the writ petition being SCA No. 1428/2012, the award under Section
      12(2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of the
      amount of compensation and though the Division Bench of the High
      Court dismissed the said writ petition, however thereafter reserved liberty
      in favour of the appellants – original landowners to pursue such remedy
G     as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation or any
      other relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that liberty,
      the appellants – original landowners thereafter and after dismissal of the
      special leave petition by this Court filed reference. Therefore, in view of
      the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants to
      pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of
H     compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed
      MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL v. THE DEPUTY                                   349
          COLLECTOR & SLAO [M. R. SHAH, J.]

as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within a          A
period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave
petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition, which was
dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original landowners whose
valuable lands had been acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petition
                                                                                B
before the High Court (in the earlier round of litigation) they challenged
the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observed
that it is too late to make any grievance, still the High Court while
dismissing the writ petition reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to
initiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the compensation.
        8. As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and order          C
passed by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late to
make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation,
those observations are to be read while considering the prayer of the
appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings. It appears that the
acquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awarded           D
is inadequate. To that, the observations were made by the High Court
that it is too late to raise such a dispute. Therefore, the High Court ought
to have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissing
the reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the
matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.
                                                                                E
       9. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal & Others (supra) and
Mahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any
dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitation
for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be
extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable.      F
However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning the delay in
exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As observed
hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisition
proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition
by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the         G
liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ Petition
No. 1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal
of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners
filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In the
aforesaid two decisions before this Court, there were no such facts.
                                                                                H
350                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable
      to the facts of the case on hand.
             10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court as well as the order passed by the reference court
B     dismissing the writ petition/reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894
      as barred by limitation are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
      remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits. We
      direct the reference court to finally decide and dispose of the reference
      within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present
      order.
C
             11. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there
      shall be no order as to costs.

      Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal allowed.
D




E




F




G




H