Raghuwansh Chaprana vs The State of Haryana

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 805 and 1922 of 2006, as the same arise out of common acquisition.

The present appeals have been filed against the award dated 31.10.2005, whereby the learned court below dismissed the objections filed by the land owners on account of delay.

Briefly, the facts are that land situated in revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for development and utilisation thereof as Industrial Area in Sectors 31, 32, 35 and 36, vide notification dated 4.11.1977, 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 2.5.1984 assessed the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, dismissed the objections filed by the landowners being time barred vide award dated 31.10.2005. It is this award which is impugned in both the appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of other landowners, whose land was acquired vide same notification, have been awarded higher compensation, whereas only the appellants have been discriminated. They could not prefer objections immediately after the award was passed as there were problems in the family. The appellants were held up in that. It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below that the reference filed by the land owners was time barred, 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 4.11.1977. Though the award was announced on 2.5.1984, but the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners at that time, and the objections, which were filed on 6.7.2001 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. On 3.7.2001, the appellants came to know about the filing of cases for enhancement and immediately thereafter they 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 appellants 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 4.11.1977. The Collector announced the award on 2.5.1984. It is admitted case of the appellants that they had received the compensation of the acquired land on 25.11.1994. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellants on 6.7.2001.

In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellants are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from the date the appellants claimed that they received the amount of compensation or from the date they admittedly had the knowledge of announcement of the award. It is for the reason that admitted case of the parties is that the appellants have received the amount of compensation on 25.11.1994.

Section 18 of the Act is extracted below:

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:

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.

(emphasis supplied)

The same view was followed in State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman, and by this Court in RFA No. 2513 of 1992-Harbans Singh vs. The State of Punjab decided on 8.8.2014.

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the delay in filing of objections against the award of the Collector cannot be condoned. In the case in hand, the appellants were very well aware of the acquisition proceedings. As has been mentioned in para 18 of the learned Reference Court that with respect to release of land under acquisition, they had filed petition in this Court, though particulars of the petition have not been mentioned, which was dismissed in the year 1994. The amount of compensation was received by them on 25.11.1994 and the objections were admittedly filed after seven years thereafter on 6.7.2001, which were clearly beyond the period of six weeks from the date of knowledge of the award.

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned Reference Court in dismissing the objections filed by the appellants as time barred. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.