VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

                        [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1105                           1105


               VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE                                 A
                                 v.
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 6003-6004 of 2018)
                          JULY 04, 2018                                B
                 [N. V. RAMANA AND
           MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.12(2) – Effective notice of
the award – Land acquisition – Passing of the award – Copy of
                                                                       C
award not sent to land owner along with the notice dated 04.12.1987
of the award – Land owner received certified copy of the award on
03.02.1988 – Thereafter, on 09.02.1988 the land owner filed
reference against award for enhancement of compensation – Issue
raised as to limitation – Reference Court held the Reference to be
within limitation – However, High Court held the Reference to be       D
barred by limitation – On appeal, held: There could not have been
a valid notice of the award, by letter dated 04.12.1987, u/s. 12(2),
until the land owner received a certified copy of the award, which
he did on 03.02.1988 – Thus, the reference for enhancement filed
on 09.02.1988 not barred by limitation – Order of the High Court
                                                                       E
concerning the point of limitation set aside.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: The notice dated 04.12.1987, was not accompanied
with the award. In the instant case, there could not have been a
valid notice of the award, by letter dated 04.12.1987, under sub-      F
section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, until the
appellant received a certified copy of the award, which he did on
03.02.1988. Therefore, the reference for enhancement was,
accordingly, not barred by limitation. The order of the High Court
concerning the point of limitation is set aside and the matters are
remanded back for fresh consideration on merits of the case            G
inter alia, as to the quantum of compensation. [Para 11, 12]
[1110-E, F]
      Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [2012] 3 SCR
      1042 : (2012) 5 SCC 250 – relied on.
                                                                       H
                                 1105
1106            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A                               Case Law Reference
             [2012] 3 SCR 1042               relied on             Para 11
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6003-
       6004 of 2018.
 B            From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2014 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal Nos.116
       and 31 of 1996
                                         WITH
             Civil Appeal Nos. 6006-6007 of 2018.
 C
             Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Kotwal, Raghunatha Sethupathy,
       Gagan Narang, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nishant Ramakantrao
       Katneshwarkar, R.S.Hegde, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Chandra
       Prakash, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties..
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 D
             N. V. RAMANA, J.
             Civil Appeal Nos.6003-6004/2018
             (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516-27517/2014)

 E           1. Leave granted.
             2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
       dated 14.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
       (Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal
       No. 31 of 1996.
 F            3. A brief reference to facts of the case may be necessary for the
       disposal of this case. The predecessor interest of the appellant herein
       was the owner of the property in dispute. In the year 1985, the disputed
       land, was proposed to be acquired by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC
       Corporation, Amravati for construction of city service terminus at
       Amravati. Required Notification under Section 126 (4) of the MRTP
 G
       Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published
       in the Government Gazette dated 05.12.1985. Thereafter the objections
       from the interested parties were heard by the Special Land Acquisition
       Officer, Zilla Parishad Works, Amravati. By a final order dated 30.11.1987,
       the Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award, wherein an
 H
     VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF          1107
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

amount of Rs. 5,83,366/- was payable by the respondent authorities to       A
the appellant herein. On 21.12.1987, the predecessor interest of the
appellant received a notice from the collector/Land Acquisition Officer
informing them about the award being passed on 30.11.1987, which is
reproduced as under-
      You are hereby given notice that you are being treated as             B
      person interested in the above-mentioned case. In the said case
      on 30.11.1987, I, have pronounced the following Award under
      sub-section 1 of Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
       (1) The area of the land is 704.31 sq. meters in plot No. 3.
       (2) The amount of Rs. 2,58,849.00 as compensation be given for       C
           the land.
       (3) The amount of compensation has been divided as follows:-
           …..
           …..                                                              D
      (2) The amount payable to you is Rs.2,58,849.00. You personally
      or through authorized representative should remain present before
      me on 28.12.1987. You can receive the compensation under protest
      so that there is no impediment in your right to send reference to
      the Civil Court in respect of this case.                              E
       It may be noted that the actual award was not enclosed with the
aforesaid notice and the predecessor interest of the appellant received
the certified copy of the award only on 03.02.1988. On 09.02.1988, the
predecessor interest of the appellant, aggrieved by the compensation
awarded to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference   F
against the award for enhancement of compensation under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the predecessor interest
of the appellant, had received the award amount under protest, that the
reference for enhancement was pending.
       4. The Reference Court (Court of Civil Judge), after hearing the     G
parties concerned, partly allowed the reference and increased the
compensation from Rs. 110/- per square meter to Rs. 210/- per square
meter. It may not be out of context to note that respondent authority had
not raised any issue on limitation.
                                                                            H
1108            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A           5. Aggrieved, both parties, filed Cross appeals being First Appeal
       No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and the present matter
       was tagged along with various other similar petitions. The High Court by
       order dated, 07.10.2010, while remanding the matter back to the
       Reference Court on the issue of limitation, kept the matter pending
       before the High Court in the following manner-
 B
             On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
             the Record and proceedings along with the copy of Section 12(2)
             notices, which were sought to be produced by the learned Assistant
             Government Pleaders before this Court at the time of the
             arguments that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to
 C           refer the issue of limitation to the reference Court from whose
             judgments, the appeals are preferred by invoking the provisions
             of Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the
             reference Court has omitted and failed to frame and try the issue
             of limitation, which essentially ought to have been decided before
 D           deciding the reference applications on merit.
             Hence, by keeping all these first appeals pending in High Court,
             the issue of limitation is referred to the reference Court for trial
             after granting an opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings
             on the issue of limitation and also to tender evidence on the said
 E           issue. The reference Court is directed to try the issue of limitation
             in all these cases within a period of six months from the date of
             appearance of the parties before the reference Court and shall
             return the record to this Court and shall return the record to this
             Court together with its findings on the issue of limitation along
             with the reasons therefor.
 F
              6. On remand, the reference Court granted opportunity to the
       parties to lead evidence and upon hearing the parties, it passed judgment
       and order dated 11.10.2011. The reference court, found that the
       predecessor interest had filed the reference for enhancement, before
       the expiry of the limitation as they became aware of the contents of the
 G     award only on 03.02.1988 and not when a notice informing the award
       was sent.
              7. The High court resumed hearing of the case, after receiving
       the order of the Reference Court on remand. The High Court again
       dealt with the contention concerning the issue of limitation and concluded,
 H     by order dated 14.07.2014, that the appellants herein, had not filed the
     VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF          1109
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

reference for enhancement of compensation within the time limitation,          A
in the following manner-
      10. The next submission made by Mr. K.H. Deshpande, learned
      Senior Counsel, is that the details about the Award in order to
      raise a challenge or grounds to be taken in the reference
      Application, could be available only after obtaining certified copy      B
      of the Award and a mere visit to the office of the Land Acquisition
      officer for receipt of compensation on 28th December, 1987 cannot
      be taken to mean that the claimants were posted with the details
      of the Award in order to raise a challenge. It is an admitted fact
      that all the claimants received compensation on 28 th
      December, 1987 and, therefore, constructively and                        C
      practically, they must be posted with the knowledge about
      the contents and details of the award.
      8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant is in
appeal before this Court.
                                                                               D
      9. The main contention canvassed by the appellants, in these Civil
Appeals, is whether an effective notice of the award was provided to
the appellant herein, as per the mandate of Section 12 (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894?
      10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, relies       E
on the judgment of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2012)
5 SCC 250, wherein this court has observed as under-
      20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the conclusion
      recorded by the Reference Court, which has been approved by
      the High Court that the application filed by the appellant was barred    F
      by time is legally sustainable.
      21. A careful reading of the averments contained in Para 2
      of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1)
      shows that the notice issued by the Collector under Section
      12(2) was served upon him on 22-2-1985. Thereafter, his
                                                                               G
      advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed
      application dated 8-4-1985 for making a reference to the
      Court. This implies that the copy of the award had not been
      sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that
      he could not have effectively made an application for
      seeking reference.                                                       H
1110            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A           22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced
             before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award
             was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately,
             while deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the
             Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application
             filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the time specified in Section
 B
             18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
             committed serious error by approving the view taken by the
             Reference Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice
             issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was not accompanied
             by a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise
 C           of right vested in the appellant to seek reference under Section
             18(1).
                                                          (emphasis supplied)
              11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government,
       has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law. Accordingly, we are of
 D     the opinion that the aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the
       present case as the notice dated 4.12.1987, was not accompanied with
       the award. In this case, there could not have been a valid notice of the
       award, by letter dated 4.12.1987, under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of
       the Land Acquisition Act, until the appellant received a certified copy of
 E     the award, which he did on 03.02.1988. Therefore, the reference for
       enhancement was, accordingly, not barred by limitation.
              12. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case,
       we set aside the order of the High Court concerning the point of limitation
       and remand the matters back for fresh consideration on merits of the
 F     case inter alia, as to the quantum of compensation. Taking into
       consideration, the long pendency, we request the High Court to dispose
       of the matter expeditiously.
             13. The appeals are disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
             Civil Appeal Nos. 6006-6007 of 2018
 G           (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16339-16340/2018)
             (arising out of SLP (C) No............... CC No. 17187 of 2014)

             14. Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.

 H
     VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF          1111
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

       15. Application for deletion of respondent no. 3 in Special Leave      A
Petition arising out of First Appeal No. 35 of 1996 is allowed.
        16. Leave granted.
      17. As these appeals are filed against the same impugned judgment
and order dt. 14.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and having the same question of law, these              B
appeals are also disposed of in a sequel to the discussion set
out above.


Nidhi Jain                                             Appeals disposed of.   C




                                                                              D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H