Sri Rabindra Nath Mondal vs The Special Land Acquisition Collector (H.I.T), Howrah and Others

Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated November 21, 2005 is seeking an order quashing a decision of the Land Acquisition Collector, Howrah rejecting his application under s. 8 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a reference to Court. The lands concerning which the notices at pp.46-50 of the WP were issued by the Collector to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted the reference application signed by him on August 23, 1991, were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Act.

The notice at p.46 of the WP is dated February 26, 1983. It was issued under s. 8B of the Act for determination of on account payment of compensation in advance. The notice at p.47 of the WP is dated March 16, 1983. It was issued offering the petitioner Rs.63,771.14 on account payment of compensation in advance. The petitioner accepted the offer and received the payment.

The notice at p.48 of the WP is dated February 02, 1991. It was issued under sub-s.(3) of s. 5 of the Act asking the petitioner to participate in the compensation determination process. The notices at pp.49-50 of the WP both are dated July 26, 1991. They were issued to the petitioner under sub-s.(2) of s. 7 of the Act offering him compensation according to the award.

In view of the provisions of s. 8 of the Act, the s. 7(2) notices were to be treated as notices issued by the Collector to the petitioner under sub-s.(2) of s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the two notices issued under sub-s.(2) of s. 7 of the Act the Collector mentioned that he had made the requisite award on July 24,1991. The notices reveal that payment was made on July 31, 1991.

In view of the provisions of s. 8 of the Act, the petitioner aggrieved by the award could make an application for reference to the Court according to provisions of sub-s.(2) of s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and the notices under s. 7(2) of the Act were to be treated as notices under s. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of the proviso to s. 18(2) thereof.

Sub-section(2) of s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is quoted below:-

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

The document at pp.51-53 of the WP is a copy of the reference application signed by the petitioner on August 23, 1991. He requested the Collector as follows:-

In the circumstances it is therefore prayed that your Honour may be pleased to refer the case before the learned L.A. Judge u/s under Section 80 of the Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948 or Tribunal or to any other appropriate Court for proper determination of fair compensation and also for necessary action and/or to pass such other further order or orders as to your Honour may seem fit and proper;

In the reference application signed by the petitioner on August 23, 1991 the petitioner asserted that he was entitled to "compensation at the market price which was not adjudged properly at the time of the award." He requested the Collector to refer the matter to the Court. It is evident that he actually wanted a reference under s. 8 (not s. 80) of the Act.

The document at p.54 of the WP is an information slip issued by the office of the Collector on September 15, 2005. It was issued in response to a request for information submitted by the petitioner''s advocate on August 12, 2005. Request was made for providing information about reference application, if any, received from the petitioner by the office of the Collector and the fate of such application.

The office of the Collector provided the following information:- (i)date of receipt of notice under s. 12(2): July 26, 1991; (ii)date of payment: July 31, 1991; (iii) date of receipt of reference application: January 04, 1992; and (iv)the reference application was rejected on the grounds that it was time barred. The question is whether the reference application was actually time barred.

Nowhere in the WP the petitioner has stated that the reference application signed by him on August 23, 1991 was submitted at any date before January 04, 1992. His case (WP para.13) rather is that after signing the application he handed it over to his advocate who never contacted him, and that till July 01, 2005 he could not collect any information about its fate. Thus he accepted that the reference application was actually submitted on January 04, 1992.

The petitioner has stated a case (WP para.18) that since neither a copy of the award nor the details thereof had been provided to him by the Collector with the s. 7(2) notices, he was entitled to submit the reference application within six months from the date of the Collector''s award; and that the information slip proved that the application was filed within the permissible six-month period. Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued this six-month case.

There can be no dispute that the Collector was under an obligation to send a copy of the award or provide details thereof to the petitioner with the s. 7(2) notices. The petitioner could submit his reference application only if he had sufficient knowledge of the necessary particulars of the award. Since notices under sub-s.(2) of s. 7 were served, he was entitled to submit his reference application within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notices.

This six-week period was to be utilized by him for collecting the details of the award or a copy of the award. He prepared his reference application by August 23, 1991. In his reference application signed on August 23, 1991 he did not say that for want of details of the award he was unable to submit an effective reference application. It is, therefore, not acceptable that before January 04, 1992 he was unable to file his reference application.

The petitioner''s own case revealed by his WP and the documents produced therewith leads to an irresistible conclusion that the reference application signed on August 23, 1991 was submitted only on January 04, 1992. It was filed long after expiration of the six-week period mentioned in cl.(b) of the proviso to sub-s.(2) of s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector rightly rejected it on the grounds of limitation. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.