Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2487 (BOM)

Shriram v. Sub-Divisional Officer

2015-11-23

R.K.DESHPANDE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This Court had passed an order on 20-11-2015 fixing the matter today for final hearing at serial no.1, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant. The parties are heard finally. 2. The Reference Court has rejected the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on one of the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The provision of Section 18 of the said Act dealing with the reference to the Court also deals with the question of limitation. Hence, the said provision is reproduced below : “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.” In terms of proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, if the person making the reference was present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when award was made, reference is required to be filed within a period of six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. In other cases, the reference has to be filed within a period of 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. 3. In other cases, the reference has to be filed within a period of 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. 3. In order to claim the benefit under proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, the claimant has to make an averment in the application for reference under Section 18 that he was not present or was not represented before the Collector in terms of proviso (a) below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act when the Collector made his award, and to lead evidence to establish it. If this fact is established, then only the question of considering the claim of the claimant under proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act shall arise. 4. In the present case, undisputedly, the award was passed on 6-4-1996. There is no averment in the application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act that the appellant was not present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when the award was made. The appellant was, therefore, bound to establish that the reference was preferred within a period of six weeks from the date of the award, i.e. from 64-1996. The period of six weeks expired on 21-5-1996, and the reference was preferred on 29-9-1997. In such a situation, even if it is established that the appellant received the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act on 19-4-1997, he would not be entitled to the benefit under proviso (b) to subsection (2) of Section 18 of the said Act. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Reference Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.491 of 2014 (Civil Revision Application No.9 of 2015) (Subhashchandra s/o Damaji Panchabudhey and others v. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others), rendered on 16-2-2015. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.491 of 2014 (Civil Revision Application No.9 of 2015) (Subhashchandra s/o Damaji Panchabudhey and others v. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others), rendered on 16-2-2015. In the said decision, it was not the question raised or involved as to whether the claimant is entitled to the benefit of proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, in the absence of pleading and proof that the appellant was not present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when the award was made, as contemplated in proviso (a) below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act. The said decision is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.