Jalmi Ram And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Instant petition has been filed against order, dated 24th January, 2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, South Zone Winter Field,

Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'Land Acquisition Collector'), whereby he has refused to refer the application of the petitioners to District Judge for

making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for enhancement of the compensation awarded

by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of land for construction of KatoluÂGanviÂJagori road in case No. SMLÂ16/88 vide award, dated

28th May, 1999, on the ground that application was not filed within time prescribed under law.

The case of the petitioners is that the application was within time from the date of knowledge of the award to the land ownersÂpetitioners whereas

the stand of the respondentsÂState is that the award was passed in the year 1999 and the application for making reference was preferred on 19th

August, 2016, i.e. after seventeen years of passing of the award.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation amount in pursuance to the award passed in the year 1999 was disbursed on 18th

July, 2016 whereupon the petitioners came to know about the contents of the award and immediately thereafter, certified copy of award was applied

on 20th July, 2016, which was attested and received on 27th July, 2016, whereafter application for making reference under Section 18 of the Act was

moved to the Land Acquisition Collector on 19th August, 2016 and, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioners was well within the time

available under law to the land ownersÂ​ petitioners.

The said contention of the petitioners has been refuted by the respondentsÂState by claiming, on the basis of CD Form submitted on 2nd

November, 2008 for obtaining copy of award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram (father of petitioners No. 1 to

6) had received copy of award in the year 2008 and as such, the land owner was having knowledge of contents of the award in the year 2008 disÂ‐

entitling the petitioners to claim that they attained the knowledge of contents of the award only after disbursement of the amount of compensation in

July, 2016.

Referring the statement of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram made on 23rd April, 1999, before Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, it is also canvassed on

behalf of the respondentsÂ​State that said Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram also remained associated in the acquisition proceedings in the year 1999.

The issue with regard to period available to the land owners for preferring application under Section 18 of the Act is not res integra and has been

settled as long back in the year 2010 vide pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Bhagwan Das and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and others, reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545, wherein one of the four issues decided is as under:

“6. The following questions arise for consideration, on the contentions urged:

(a) …........

(b) ….......

(c) Whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the

award of the Collector or from the date of award itself?

(d) ….........â€​

After considering its earlier decisions, including the basic pronouncement in case titled as Harish Chandra Raj Singh versus Land Acquisition

Officer, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, and also the provisions of law, it has been concluded by the apex Court in Bhagwan Das's case (supra) as

under:

“28. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act :

(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks

from the date of the Collector's award itself.

(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking

reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).

(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2)

from the Collector,he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the

contents of the award.

(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he

cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2)

of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.â€​

Record of the Land Acquisition Collector has also been requisitioned wherein it is reported by the concerned Patwari and endorsed by the Kanungo

in the Office of Land Acquisition Collector that award, dated 28th May, 1999 / 2nd June, 1999 was passed in the absence of petitioners and as per

record, notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was also not issued, however, Dwaroo was associated and present during the proceedings under

Section 9 of the Act on 23rd April, 1999, but, there is nothing on record with regard to informing him about passing of the award.

As per report, notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners after deposit of amount with the Collector and the amount was

received by petitioners on 18th July, 2016. It is also reported that as per record, land ownerÂDwaroo had received copy of award on 26th November,

2008 through Copying Agency and, therefore, at the time of preferring application for making reference, eight years had elapsed after receiving the

copy of award by Dwaroo.

Considering the said report, Land Acquisition Collector has passed the impugned order and refused to make a reference to the District Judge.

Hence, the present petition.

From the record, it is evident that land owners were not present at the time of passing of the award; no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was

issued; notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation was issued in the year 2016 and the amount was

disbursed on 18th July, 2016.

The fact that Dwaroo Ram had received copy of award in November, 2008 has been disputed by the petitioners by filing a copy of death

certificate of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram alongwith jamabandi of land owned and possessed by Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram, mutated in favour of his

legal heirs on 30th January, 2006. Statement showing compensation of each holdings of Village Ganvi has also been placed on record wherein Dwaroo

Ram @ Mani Ram s/o Bhagsi has been shown as one of the claimants.

From the death certificate placed on record, which remained uncontroverted, it is apparent that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram had expired on 1st

January, 2005. Therefore, plea of respondentsÂState that Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram had received copy of award in the year 2008 is not sustainable,

more particularly, when the CD Form, placed on record by the respondentsÂState, does not find mention name of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram or his

legal heirs as applicant(s) in the said form/application.

The said application has been filed by some Prem Paul, Advocate. There is nothing on record to verify that the said Prem Paul was an Advocate

and was ever engaged by petitioners; and for whom he had applied for the copy of the award; and as to whether the said application was filed on

behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of someone else for any other purpose. Purpose for which the copy had been applied has been shown as 'for

execution', but, the fact remains that no such execution was ever preferred by the petitioners or anybody else on behalf of the land owners.

Association of Dwaroo Ram @ Mani Ram in proceedings conducted under Section 9 of the Act on 23rd April, 1999 also does not make any

difference as it is admitted case of the respondentsÂState that award was passed in absence of the land owners and no notice under Section 12 (2) of

the Act was ever issued. From the record, the only time when the petitioners were informed about passing of the award is 14th July, 2016, when

notice under Section 37 (2) of the Act was issued to them and they received the compensation amount whereafter the application for reference was

preferred on 19th August, 2016.

AsperpronouncementoftheapexCourtin Bhagwan Das's case (supra), the present case is covered by para 28 (iii) of the said judgment, which

provides that if the person interested was not present when the award is made and if he does not receive notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act from

the Collector, he has to make application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the

award.

In present case, contents of the award came to the actual or constructive knowledge of the petitioners in July, 2018 and, therefore, application

preferred by them was will within the prescribed period of limitation.

For the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to transmit the application preferred by

the petitioners to the concerned District Judge for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act within three weeks from today. Petition is disposed

of alongwith all pending applications, if any, in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.