Harbans Singh vs The State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 6.5.1992, whereby the learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the land owner on account of delay as well as on merits.

Briefly, the facts are that land as well as the super structure existing thereon situated within the revenue estate of village Mataur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for setting up of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project Colony, vide notification dated 12.11.1976, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') vide award dated 9.12.1987 assessed the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections, which were referred to District Judge, Ropar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, dismissed the objections filed by the landowner being time barred vide award dated 6.5.1992. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below on both the counts, namely, that the reference filed by the land owner was time barred and on merits, that no case for further enhancement had been made out, are totally erroneous. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period expires first. The submission is that in the present case, the land was acquired vide notification u/s 4 of the Act dated 12.11.1976. Though the award was announced on 9.12.1987, but the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owner, and the objections, which were filed in February 1989 were within limitation of six months as enumerated u/s 18(2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award. In January, 1989, he came to know about the announcement of award from Ram Kishan Lamberdar and in February, 1989, he filed the objections, the same should be considered as the date of knowledge.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that delay in filing objections cannot be condoned. The learned court below has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant being time barred.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

The facts, which are evident from the record are that notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 12.11.1976. The Collector announced the award on 9.12.1987. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellant in February, 1989. The appellant in his cross-examination on 27.9.1991, admitted that he has received the compensation of the land about 7-8 years back and about 2 or 3 years back, he has received the compensation second time. He has also admitted that the compensation was paid in the village.

In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellant are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from the date the appellant claimed that he received the amount of compensation or from the date he admittedly had the knowledge of announcement of the award. It is for the reason that admitted case of the parties is that at the time of announcement of the award, the appellant was present.

Section 18 of the Act is extracted 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 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 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 u/s 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire."

The aforesaid section provides that in case any person interested does not accept the award, he may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred to the court. The objections can be regarding measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The application should contain the grounds on which the award is objected to. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides for the period in which the objections could be filed. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case a person is present or represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed within six months from the date of the Collector''s award. Clause (b) provides that in other cases, the objections can be filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector u/s 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector''s award, whichever period expires first.

In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Another Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others, Hon''ble the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether limitation provided for u/s 18(2) of the Act for filing objections can be extended and it was answered in the negative. Paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof are extracted below:

"17. It is to be remembered that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) was enacted prescribing the limitation to exercise the power under Sections 4, 6 and 11 and also excluded the time occupied due to stay granted by the courts. Taking cognizance of the limitation prescribed in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the provisions of the Limitation Act were not expressly extended. Though Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is available, and the limitation in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 may be treated to be special law, in the absence of such an application by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984), the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the court and the Collector/LAO performs only statutory duties under the Act, including one while making reference u/s 18. It is difficult to construe that the Collector/LAO while making reference u/s 18, as statutory authority still acts as a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority u/s 18(1). Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to subsection (2) of Section 18. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court u/s 5 of the Limitation Act."

The same view was followed in State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman,

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, that in case the land owner or his representative was present at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed within six weeks from that date. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended. In the present case, the landowner had not denied his presence at the time of announcement of award by the Collector. He has also admitted payment of compensation in the village.

If the facts of the present case are considered, the admitted position available on record is that the land owner had the knowledge of the award on 9.12.1987. The objections were admittedly filed in the year 1989, which were clearly beyond the period of six weeks from the date of knowledge of the award. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned court below holding the objections to be beyond limitation.

Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no case for interference with the impugned award can be made out. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.