N. Rajaraman (died) and Others vs The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Gingee

A.P. Shah, C.J.—This matter has been referred to a Full Bench as the Division Bench found that there is divergence of opinion and particularly the ratio of the reported decision in The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Chinnasamy and Others, cannot be reconciled with other unreported Division Bench decisions. The appellant before us is the original writ petitioner. The prayer in the writ petition was to issue a mandamus directing the respondent to make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1892 (Act'' in short). It was the case of the petitioner that an application dated 22.1.1991 had been made for making a reference, but since no action was taken, subsequently, another application was made on 27.12.1991 and since no order was passed, the writ petition was filed. The case of the State was to the effect that the application dated 22.1.1991 was never made and, therefore, the question of passing any order did not arise. So far as the application dated 27.12.1991 is concerned, it was contended by the State Government that such application was beyond the period of limitation as contemplated u/s 18 of the Act and, therefore, no reference has been made. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 27.12.1991 and pass appropriate orders according to law. The order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. Before the Appeal Bench the main contention was that, where a written objection had been filed by the interested person during the enquiry relating to the award, on the basis of such written objection itself a reference can be made, notwithstanding the fact that after the award is made, no other formal application is filed. In support of such contention, reliance was upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Chinnasamy and Others, On the other hand, the State relied upon another Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2006 (The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Papathi & 11 others) disposed of on 17.3.2006, wherein it was observed that a reference u/s 18 cannot be made unless an application u/s 18(1) of the Act is made for making such reference. Similar view is also expressed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1056 and 1057 of 2005 (The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Ammani Ammal & others), disposed of on 12.9.2006.

Mr. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that since the objection had been filed by the appellant during the enquiry relating to the award, on the basis of such written objection itself, a reference ought to have been made notwithstanding the fact that after the award is made, no other formal application is made. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Salem Urukkalai Thittathal Nilam Ilenthor Sangam & others (2006) 1 MLJ 252 = 2006-1-L.W.347 wherein the Division Bench has observed as under:-

Having regard to this settled legal position laid down by the Apex court as well as various High Courts, it is clear that the protest or expression of dissatisfaction to the award of compensation without there being anything in writing may be sufficient and that the authority concerned is under an obligation to refer the mater to the Court in accordance with Section 18(2) of the Act. In view of this legal position various categories as indicated hereinabove, expressing their protest and filing their applications for reference and some having not even received notices u/s 12(2) of the Act, cannot be denied the right to refer their cases to the Court u/s 18(2) of the Act, and therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.

Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Division Bench in The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Chinnasamy and Others, , where the Division Bench, by referring to some earlier decisions, has observed thus:

Thus, it is clear that even without a formal application, if the land owner expresses his protest or dissatisfaction to the award of compensation, the authority is under an obligation to refer the matter to the Court u/s 18(2) of the Act.

On the other hand, Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader submitted that Section 18 of the Act provides that the application must be in writing; made to the Collector, requiring him to refer the matter for determination to the Court. In the absence of such application, the Collector has no power to refer the matter to the Civil court for determination of the compensation. Learned Government Pleader relied upon a number of decisions of the Supreme Court, to which we shall presently make a reference.

The first judgment referred to by the learned Government Pleader is in Smt. Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another, In that case, the question was when one of the co-owners of the acquired land filed a reference in respect of his share only and got the compensation enhanced, whether the other co-owners can seek enhancement of compensation of their shares on the basis of the award of the Court. Rejecting the claimants pleas, the two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when the compensation is received under protest under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, the application in writing has to be made within the limitation prescribed u/s 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Officer, objecting to either extent of the land, classification, value of the land or apportionment of the compensation, and upon receipt thereof, reference to Court would be made. It was further held that the applicant shall be required to state the grounds on which he/she objects to the compensation, etc. and that a valid reference is a pre-condition for the Civil Court to adjudicate the objections raised in the reference application.

In Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shivbai and others, two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed as follows:

It is now settled position in law that the claimants who receive the compensation under protest and who make application u/s 18(1), alone are entitled to seek a reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference u/s 18. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference Court is clearly illegal.

(emphasis supplied)

This issue was again considered by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Another, n the context of the comparison between Section 18 and Section 30 of the Act. Lahoti, J. (as he then was) observed as follows:

Under Section 18(1) , a reference can be made by the Collector only upon an application in writing having been made by (i) any person interested, (ii) who has not accepted the award, (iii) making application in writing, to the Collector, requiring a reference by the Collector toZ the Court, (iv) for determination of any one of the four disputes (specified in the provision),and(v) stating the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. For reference u/s 30, no application in writing is required. The prayer may be made orally or in writing or the reference maybe made suo motu by the Collector without anyone having invited the attention of the Collector for making the reference.

(emphasis supplied).

The judgment in Sharda Devi''s case (supra) was followed by another two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Meher Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, where it was observed in paragraph 21 that persons who have notice of the acquisition proceedings would have to apply for a reference u/s (sic) of the Act.

In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in P.K. Sreekantan and Others Vs. P. Sreekumaran Nair and Others, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Courts under the Land Acquisition Act is a special one and strictly limited to the terms of Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Act and it only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector''s award and is confined to the consideration of that objection. Therefore, when the only objection is to the amount of compensation awarded, that alone is the matter referred to the Court, and the Court has no jurisdiction to ''determine or consider anything beyond it.

In our opinion, the reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant, Salam v. Salam Urukkallai Thittathal Nilam Ilanthor Sangam (Supra) is wholly inappropriate. In that case, the question was whether there can be an implied protest, and the Court held that a mere protest or expression of dissatisfaction to the award of compensation without there being anything in writing may be sufficient and the authority concerned is under an obligation to refer the matter to the Court in accordance with Section 18(2) of the Act. It is also seen from the judgment that the claimants therein had filed their applications for reference u/s 18 of the Act. In fact, in the decision of this Court in The Tamilnadu Housing Board & Administrative officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Papathi (supra), the Division Bench, following the decisions in Ambay Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) and Land Acquisition Officer v. Shivabai (supra), held that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted for the simple reason that he has not made any application u/s 18(1) of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that for making a reference u/s 18 of the Act, a written application after the award is passed is mandatory and such application is required to be made within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 18 of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Division Bench for disposal of the matters in accordance with law.