Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3370 (MAD)

Kannan & Others v. District Collector & Another

2009-08-26

S.MANIKUMAR

body2009
Judgment : 1. The petitioners have sought for a for a mandamus, directing the respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Sub Court, Ranipet in respect of lands measuring 0.50 Cents and 0.50 Cents in S.Nos.97/6 and 103 respectively and 1/4th Share in well at Piliyanthangal Village, as determined by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in LA.O.P.No.160 of 1984 and LA.O.P.No.29 of 1991, respectively for determination of compensation amount. 2. Short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: The first petitioner owned lands measuring 0.50 Cents and 0.50 Cents in S.Nos.97/6 and 103 respectively and 1/4th Share in well at Piliyanthangal Village. The said lands were acquired by the Government for the benefit of BHEL and the District Collector, Vellore, first respondent herein, passed an Award in No.14 of 1983, dated 110. 1983. Since there was a dispute with regard to the ownership among several persons, who claimed independent right, the Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition). BHEL, referred the matters under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to Sub-Court, Ranipet. However, no reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the Sub-Court, Ranipet. Reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.160 of 1984 and L.A.O.P.No.29 of 1991, in the sub-Court, Ranipet, in which, first petitioner was the first claimant. Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, found that third petitioner was entitled to .50 cents of lands in the said Survey Number. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that while referring the matter to the Sub Court, under Section 30, simultaneously a reference under Section 18 of the Act, ought to have been made to the Civil Court. Though the petitioners have issued a notice, dated 25. 1995 to the respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act, there was no response. Hence, the Legal representatives, petitioners have come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief as stated supra. 4. Mr. Margabandu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cheque amounts were received only on 23. 1993 and 110. 1994 in LA.O.P.No.160 of 1984 and L.A.O.P.No.29 of 1991, respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet and within a period of six weeks, the petitioners had sent a notice, dated 25. 4. Mr. Margabandu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cheque amounts were received only on 23. 1993 and 110. 1994 in LA.O.P.No.160 of 1984 and L.A.O.P.No.29 of 1991, respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet and within a period of six weeks, the petitioners had sent a notice, dated 25. 1995, requesting him to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was duly acknowledged by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) BHEL, Ranipet, on 25. 1995. Therefore, he contended that the objection to the quantum of compensation has been made in time, as per Section 18(2) of the Act. He further submitted that right to make an application for reference under Section 18(2) of the Act, would continue to subsist till the award is passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, there is no delay in filing the application for reference. He also submitted that the second respondent has failed to make reference under Section 18 of the Act simultaneously. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned Additional Government Pleader made submissions on the basis of the materials on record. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant to extract Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. “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 the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: 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; (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. Disputes as to apportionment. – When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court”. 7. As per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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 the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken and the person has to make objections within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award, if he was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. In other cases, the objections should be 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. 8. Section 30 is an enabling provision, which states that where there is a dispute as to apportionment of the amount of compensation, the Collector, may refer the matter to the Civil Court. Reading of Section 30 makes it clear that reference of the dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof, has to precede settlement of an award by the Collector, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 30 deals with only apportionment of the quantum of compensation between the parties, who are entitled to receive the compensation amount, as determined under Section 11 of the Act. The dispute as to the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Collector, has to be raised under Section 18 of the Act. 9. Section 30 deals with only apportionment of the quantum of compensation between the parties, who are entitled to receive the compensation amount, as determined under Section 11 of the Act. The dispute as to the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Collector, has to be raised under Section 18 of the Act. 9. Under Section 18 the Land Acquisition Act, written application requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court shall be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or within six weeks of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. There is no such limitation prescribed under Section 30 of the Act. The Collector may at any time, not bound by the period of limitation, exercise his powers to make the reference. The expression ‘the person present or represented’ before the Collector at the time when he made his award would include within its meaning a person who shall be deemed to be present or represented before the Collector at the time when the award is made. 10. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of passing of the Award. In fact, owing to a dispute with regard of ownership among several persons, claiming independent right, a reference has been made under Section 30 of the Act and it has been numbered as L.A.O.P.No.160 of 84 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranipet. Needless to say that where a period of limitation for exercise of any statutory power is prescribed, the power can nevertheless be exercised only within the said period and not beyond that period. 11. In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal (1996) 9 SCC 414 : (1996) 1 MLJ 113 : (1996) 2 Indian Civil Cases (SC) 89, it is held that the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the Court. The Collector/Land Acquisition Officer perform only statutory duties under the Act, including one for making reference under Section 18 and Section 29(2) of the Act cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/Land Acquisition Officer perform only statutory duties under the Act, including one for making reference under Section 18 and Section 29(2) of the Act cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. It is further held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. 12. In Poshetty v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 3 Indian Civil Cases (S.C.) 837, limitation provided under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act prescribes that if a person is present or represented, he has to make an application for reference, when he receives compensation under protest, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award and when he was not present within six weeks of the receipts of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within 6 months from the date of Collector’s award whichever period shall first expire. 13. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Shivabai AIR 1997 SC 2642 : (1997) 9 SCC 710 : (1998) 1 MLJ 14 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to the period of limitation provided under Section 18(2) of the Act, at paragraphs 7 and 8, held as follows at p.15 of MLJ: “7. Thus it could be seen that when the parties were present at the time 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, such person who has received the amount without protest is not entitled to seek a reference under Section 18. 8. …… 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 incidentally the same date. Under these circumstances, it must be presumed that they were present on the date when the award was made and the compensation was received without any protest. Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to seek any reference”. 14. The date of the award and the date of the receipt of the compensation was incidentally the same date. Under these circumstances, it must be presumed that they were present on the date when the award was made and the compensation was received without any protest. Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to seek any reference”. 14. The Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Athappa Gounder (2004) 1 MLJ 654 : (2004) 3 CTC 329 , at Paragraphs 10, has explained the scope of reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same is extracted hereunder at p. 658 of MLJ: “10. The requisite of the Reference under Section 18 is well known and Section 18 says that any person interested and who has not accepted the award may, by writing, require the matter be referred to by the Collector for determination of the Court as to whether his objection, be it to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested. Such an application with specified grounds shall be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award or within six months if notice is issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. Therefore, the requirements are that the person interested should not have accepted the award and there must be a written application to the Collector requesting him to refer the matter. That application should specify whether the objection is in reference to the determination of the amount, measurement of the land or as to whom it is payable. Thus, it could be seen that the scope of the Reference under Section 18 and the Reference under Section 30 is entirely different”. 15. In P.K. Sreekantan v. P. Sreekumaran Nair (2006) 13 SCC 574, the Supreme Court held that the reference Court derives jurisdiction from the reference made. References under Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different from each other. The decree in terms of Section 18 is different from the one in terms of Section 30. 16. 15. In P.K. Sreekantan v. P. Sreekumaran Nair (2006) 13 SCC 574, the Supreme Court held that the reference Court derives jurisdiction from the reference made. References under Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different from each other. The decree in terms of Section 18 is different from the one in terms of Section 30. 16. In the above reported case, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 16, further held that there is no time-limit for seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act, though it should always be done within a reasonableness of time flows from the need for a finality to judicial proceedings. 17. Reading of the provisions under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act and the decisions stated supra makes it manifestly clear that there is a gross difference in the scope and ambit of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the case on hand, the quantum of compensation was determined by the first respondent on 110. 1983. But, the petitioners have filed application for enhancement of compensation only in the year 1995. The said application is beyond the time provided under the Act and is barred by limitation. 18. In the light of the decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court, the contention made by the petitioners is liable to be rejected and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.