RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

A                       RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEE
                                        v.
                          STATE OF WEST BENGAL

                                  JULY 25, 1995

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894/West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition)
    Act II of 1948: ·         '

C          Sections 18(2)/11. 12(2)/Section 4-Reference Applications made--
    High Cowt holding that they were beyond limitation-Due to paucity of
    evidence controversy could not be decided-Matter refen·ed to Reference
    Co wt.

          Certain lands were acquired under the West Bengal (Requisition and
D   Acquisition) Act II of 1948 and the Collector made an award. Claimants
    preferred a reference and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation. The
    State went in appeal and the High Court noticed that the reference
    applications were made beyond limitation and that therefore the award of
    the Civil Court was held to be without jurisdiction.

E         In these appeals by certificate the appellant contended that when the
    award was signed by the Collector on March 29, 1951, the service of notice
    under S.12 (2) of the Act on February 6, 1951 was not correct and so the
    Reference Applications made on June 26, 1951 and September 7, 1951 were
    valid and within limitation.
F         Disposing of the appeals, this Court

          HELD :1. It is not desirable to decide this controversy without and
    factual foundation. The appropriate course would be that the Reference
    Court should go into the questions : [312-C]
G           (1) What is the date on which the award as required under s.12
            read with S.11 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, in
            accordance with laws, and notice as required under s.12(2) were
            served on the claimants, if they are not present or appeared
            through counsel at the time of announcing the award under s. 11.
H                                                                   [312-D]
                                        310
...                      R.K. BHATIACHARJEE v. STATE OFW.B .                   311

                   (2) What are the dates on which the applications under s.18 came A
                   to be filed by the claimants and to decide whether the applications
                   are within the limitation as provided under the proviso to s.18(2)
                   of the Act? (312-E]

              2. The matter is referred to the Reference Court, firstly to decide
        whether the Reference Applications were made within limitation in accord-    B
        ance with law. If the finding is in favour of the claimant, then it has to
        decide the compensation according to law. Since it is an old matter the
        Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter within 6 months from
        the date of the receipt of the order. (312-G]

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1807-
                                                                                     c
        09/78.

              From the Judgment and decree dated the 28th September, 1977 of
        the High Court at Calcutta in appeal from original Decree Nos. 338 of
        1958, 339 of 1958 and 340 of 1958.                                    D


...     ~~.
                 P.S. Poti, Rathin Das, S: Murlidhar and S.K. Mehta for the Appel-


                 Tapas Ray and Ms. Aruna Banerjee for Respondents.
                                                                  .



                                                                                     E
                 The Order of the Court was delivered :

             This is an appeal by Certificate under Article 133(1) against the
        Order of the High Court dated 28th September, 1977 of Calcutta High
        Court.
                                                                                     F
              The only question in this appeal is whether the Reference Applica-
        tions made by the appellant were within the limitation as provided und((r
        the proviso to s.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'The
        Act'). The Notification under s.4 of the West Bengal (Requisition and
        Acquisition) Act II of 1948 was published on April 10, 1949. The record
        would indicate that the Land Acquisition Collector appears to have made      G
        the award on March 22, 1951 and appears to have signed the same on
        March 29, 1951. We are not giving any finding in that behalf. Dissatisfied
        therewith the claimants sought for reference and the Civil Court enhanced
        the compensation. The State went in appeal to the High Court. The
      _ Division Bench noticed that the reference applications were made beyond      H
    312                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A limitation and that therefore the award of the Civil Court was held to be
    without jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal by Certificate.

          Shri Poti, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that


B
    when the award itself was signed by the Collector on March 29, 1951, the
    service of the notice under s.12(2) of the Act on February 6, 1951 appears
    to be not correct and so the Reference Applications which came to be
                                                                                     --·
    made on June 26, 1951 and September 7, 1951 are valid and within
    limitation and the High Court was not justified in holding that Reference
    Application were beyond limitation.

C          Having considered the paucity of evidence in this behalf, we find that
    it is not desirable to decide this controversy without any factual foundation.
    We think that an appropriate course would be that the Reference Court
    should go into the question :

             (1) What is the date on which the award as required under s.12
D            read with s.11 was inade by the Land Acquisition Officer, in
             accordance with laws, and notice as required under s.12(2) were
             served on the claimants, if they are not present or appeared
             through counsel at the time of announcing the award under s.11?         c
             (2) What are the dates on which the applications under s.18 came
E            to be filed by the claimants and to decide whether the.applications
             are within the.limitation as provided under the proviso to s.18(2)
             of the Act?

         Since these questions hinge upon the finding of fact and since· no
  positive finding could be recorded in this behalf on the basis of evidence
F on record. We hold that the Judgment of the High Court was not correct.
  Accordingly, it is set aside and the award and d~cree of the Reference
  Court is also set aside. The matter is referred to the Reference Court,
  firstly to decide whether the Reference Applications were made within
  limitation in accordance with law. If the finding is in favour of the claimant,
G then it.has to decide the compensation according to law. Since it is an old
  matter the Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter within 6
  months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.

           The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

    G.N.                                                Appeals are disposed of.