THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusSHIVABAI AND ORS.

                 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER                                      A
                                       v.
                          SHIVABAI AND ORS.

                               APRIL 4, 1997

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                                 B

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 4(1 ), 11, 12(2) and
18(2)-Proviso :

        La11d Acquisition-Persons entitled to seek reference in Land Acquisi-      C
tion Proceedings-Completion of enquiry under Section I I-Award made 011
same date--Compe11sation-Wiit by Respondents 1 and 2-Plea that they had
filed application under protest but no reference was made-Enquiry whether
notice was se1ved and award served 011 claimantl~Thereafter reference
made-Rejection of application seeking remissio11 of reference-Application
for impleadment of respo11dent 3 allowed-Reference answered by enhancing           D
the compensation-On Appeal Division Bench enhanced the compensa-
tio1r-Appeal before Supreme Coun-Held-it is not necessary that the award
or its copy should be served on the claimant along with notice under section
 12(2) of the Act-If the palties are not present 011 the date the award came
to be passed, then Collector shall give immediate 11otice of his award-The         E
limitatio11 begins to 1w1 from the date of the notice as per proviso to Sectio11
 18(2)-The date of the award and the date of the receipt of the compe11satio11
was incidentally the same date-{]11der these circumstances, it must be
presumed that they were present. 011 the date when the award was made and
the compensation was received without any protest-{}nder these circumsta11-
ces, they are 11ot entitled to seek any reference--Claima11ts who receive the      F
compensation u11der protest a11d who make application under Section 18(1),
alone are e11titled to seek a refere11ce-171ird pa1ties, who have been im-
pleaded have 1w 1ight to claim higher compensation by circumventi11g the
process of reference under Section 18, Under these circumstances, the refer-
ence itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation.                  G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3002 of
1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A.S. No. 1052 of 1992.                                               H
                                  647
    648                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A         G. Prabhakar for the Appellant.

         C. Sitaramiah, Vijay Kumar and Mrs. Sangeeta Kumar for the,!'
    Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
          Delay condoned.

          Leave granted.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment made by the
C   Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on April 15, 1994 in
    A.S. No. 1052/92.

           Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    (for short, the 'Act') was published on August 19 1965, acquiring large
D   tracts of land comprised in several villages for submersion due to Sriram
    Sagar Project. The land in question to an extent of 206 acres 16 gunthas
    of the land is situated in the village Nallur in Nizamabad District. Posses-
    sion thereof was taken on November 22, 1965. After completion of the
    enquiry under Section 11, the award came to be made on the same date.
E   The compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 per acre for the dry lands and at
    the rate of Rs 430 per acre for dry black cotton lands was awarded and
    paid. A writ petition was filed in 1986 by two person, i.e. respondent Nos.
    1 and 2, claiming that they had filed an application under protest, but
    reference under Section 18 was not made. The learned single judge
    directed an enquiry whether notice under Section 12(2) and the award
F   were served on the claimants as per the law then existing; if notice was not
    served, to take necessary action of reference. In writ appeal, it was con-
    firmed. Thereafter, reference was made in O.P. No. 198/90. An application.
    IA. No. 285/91, was filed seeking remission of the reference on the ground
    that it was obtained fraudulently with the connivance of the Land Acquisi-
G   tion Officer and was barred by limitation. The Additional District Judge
    by order dated October 23, 1991 dismissed the application. An IA. was
    filed for impleading other persons, respondent Nos. 3 to 103, and the
    application was allowed by the District Judge. On the basis there0f, the
    reference was answered by enhancing the compensation ranging between
H   Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 2,000 per acre. On appeal, the Division Bench in the
                  LAND ACQN. OFFICER v. SHIVABAI                          649

 impugned judgment has confirmed the enhanced compensation. Thus this A
 appeal, by special leave.

       When the matter had come up before us, we issued notice to the
 counsel for the State to produce the Acquittance Registers. Pursuant
 thereto, the Acquittance Registers have been produced which establish
 that on the day when the award came to be passed, the claimants were            B
 present and the amount was received by them without protest on Novem-
 ber 25, 1965 and two of them, who were not present on that day, received
 the compensation two days thereafter, namely, November 27, 1965. Under
 these circumstances, the question arises : whether the reference application
 came to be made within two months from the date of the award?                   C
       The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 speaks thus :

          "(2} The application shall state the grounds on which objection to
          the award is taken :
                                                                                 D
             Provided that every such application shall be made, :

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

       Thus it could be seen that when the parties were present at the time      F
 when the award came to be made, the notice under clause (b) of proviso
 to sub-section (2) of Section 18 was not necessary. As a consequence,
 within six weeks from the date of the award an application is required to
 be made for reference under Section 18. If the amount is received without
 protest, by operation of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31,       G
 such person who has received the amount without protest is not entitled
 to seek a reference under section 18.

        Shri C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respon-
- dents, contends that on the Division Bench's directing to make an enquiry
  into the matter, the Land Acquisition Officer himself has referred the         H
    650                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A   matter. Unless there is a proof of service of the notice of the award under
    sub-section (2) of Section 12, the limitation does not start. We are unable
    to agree with the learned counsel. It is now settled law that it is not
    necessary that the award or its copy should be served on the claimant along
    with notice under section 12(2) of the Act. If the parties are not present
    on the date the award came to be passed, then Collector/Land Acquisition
B   Officer shall give immediate notice of his award. The limitation begins to
    run from the date of the notice as per proviso to Section 18(2). The date
    of the award and the date of the receipt of the compensation was inciden-
    tally the same date. Under these circumstances, it must be presumed that
    they were present on the date when the award was made and the compen-
C   sation was received without any protest. Under these circumstances, they
    are not entitled to seek any reference.

           No doubt they had filed the writ petition in the High Court for
    seeking reference. But the High Court's order was only for making refer-
    ence on verification and to find out correct factual position. The officer
D   himself was in collusion with the claimants and without making any enquiry
    he made the reference. Subsequently, some persons were impleaded to the
    reference. That itself indicates that all was not going well. It is now settled
    position in law that the claimants who receive the compensation under
    protest and who make application under Section 18(1), alone are entitled
E   to seek a reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right
    to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference
    under section 18. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without
    any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the refer-
    ence court is clearly illegal. On appeal, the High Court has not considered
    all these perspectives and found it convenient to rely on another judgment
F   to uphold the award of the civil court.

           The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the
     reference court as well as that of the High Court stand set aside. No costs.

     T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.