Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10863                   OF 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.9603 of 2009)

MADAN & ANR. ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 09.O9.2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay at  

Aurangabad holding  the  Reference made by  the  Collector  

1

Page 2

under  Section  18  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  to  be  barred  by  

limitation.  The High Court, accordingly, reversed the Award  

dated 29.10.1993 passed by the Reference Court granting  

enhanced compensation to the appellants.  Aggrieved, this  

appeal has been filed.

3. The brief facts of the case may be usefully recited as  

hereunder:

Acquisition  of  a  total  area  of  8  Hectares  40  Ares  

covered  by  Survey  No.49  situated  at  village  Phule  

Pimpalgaon  in  Taluka  Majalgaon  of  Beed  District   was  

initiated by a Notification under Section 4 of the Act which  

was published in the gazette on 13.03.1980.  No objection  

under  Section  5A  of  the  Act  was  filed  by  any  person  

interested.  Consequently, the Notification under Section 6 of  

the  Act  was  published  on  18.04.1982  and  an  Award  was  

2

Page 3

passed on 16.08.1985 granting compensation at the rate of  

Rs.50/-, Rs.65/- and Rs.75/- per Are respectively for different  

categories  of  land  classified  as  Grade  I,  II  and  III  in  the  

Award.   As there was a dispute with regard to the ownership  

of the land, the Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer)  

referred the matter to the civil  court for apportionment of  

compensation under Section 30 of the Act.   The Reference  

under  Section  30  made  by  the  Collector  which  was  

registered and numbered as L.A.R. No. 94/1985 came to be  

disposed of by the learned Second Additional District Judge,  

Beed  on  4.9.1991  holding  that  the  present  appellants  

(claimants 1 and 2) are entitled to compensation in respect  

of 20 acres of the acquired land and the remaining parties  

(claimants 3 to 7) for compensation in respect of remainder  

of the acquired land.

4. It  appears  that  after  the  order  dated  4.9.1991  was  

passed in the Reference under Section 30 of the Act,  the  

appellants received the compensation on 5.9.1991.  Though  

the precise date is not available, within six weeks from the  

3

Page 4

date of  the order  dated 4.9.1991 the appellants sought a  

Reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of  

the compensation awarded.  The aforesaid Reference which  

was numbered as L.A.R.  No.  75/1992 was decided by the  

Second  Additional  District  Judge,  Beed  by  order  dated  

29.10.1993  enhancing  the  compensation  amount  by  an  

additional sum of Rs.2,10,000/- along with solatium, interest  

etc. as due under different provisions of the Act.  

5. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  Award  dated  29.10.1993,  

the  State  of  Maharashtra  filed  an  appeal  before  the  High  

Court  questioning  the  enhancement  of  the  compensation  

awarded and also contending that the Reference made was  

barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 18(2)  

of the Act.   The High Court by the impugned order dated  

09.09.2008 decided the appeal only on the issue of limitation  

by holding the same to be time barred.   Accordingly,  the  

appeal filed by the State was allowed and the Award passed  

by the Second Additional District Judge in L.A.R.No.75/1992  

was reversed.

4

Page 5

6. We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhary, learned  

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anirudh P. Mayee, learned  

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  vehemently  

urged that from the materials placed on record it is evident  

that the appellants did not participate in the enquiry leading  

to  the  Award  dated  16.08.1985  passed  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector.  No notice of the Award under Section  

12(2) of the Act was served on the appellants either.  It is  

pointed out that the appellants became entitled to receive  

compensation  under  the  Award  only  on  4.9.1991  i.e.  the  

date of the order of the court in the Reference made under  

Section 30 of the Act.  Such compensation was received by  

the appellants on 5.9.1991.    Thereafter, the application for  

Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made within the  

period of 6 weeks from the date of the order passed under  

Section 30 of the Act.  Relying  on the decision of this Court  

in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land  

Acquisition Officer & Anr.1 learned counsel has urged that  1 AIR 1961 SC 1500

5

Page 6

the date of knowledge of the Award referred to in Section  

18(2),  in  the  present  case,  has  to  be  understood  to  be  

4.9.1991 i.e. the date of the order under Section 30 of the  

Act.  If that be so, according to the learned counsel for the  

appellants, the High Court was clearly in error in holding the  

Reference  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  to  be  barred  by  

limitation. Another decision of this Court in Dr. G.H. Grant  

Vs. The State of Bihar2 has been relied onto emphasize the  

true purport of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act.

8. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf  of  

the appellants, learned counsel for the State has contended  

that the appellants having claimed to be the owners of the  

land  were  at  all  times  aware  of  the  land  acquisition  

proceeding leading to the Award dated 16.08.1985 passed  

by the Collector.  According to the learned counsel for the  

State,  the  appellants,  therefore,  should  have  sought  a  

Reference under Section 18 within the time prescribed by  

Section 18(2).  In this regard, learned counsel for the State  

has pointed out that even under Section 18 of the Act it is  2 AIR 1966 SC 237

6

Page 7

open  to  an  aggrieved  party  to  seek  a  reference  on  the  

question of apportionment of the Award.  The Award in the  

present case having been passed by the Land Acquisition  

Collector on 16.08.1985, the Reference under Section 18 for  

enhanced  compensation  made  in  the  year  1991  is  

inordinately delayed and the conclusion of the High Court to  

the said effect is fully justified.

9. For  ready reference it  may be convenient  to  set  out  

hereinunder the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act:-

“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  the  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 the Collector at the time  when he made his  award,  within six  weeks  from the date of the Collector's award;  

7

Page 8

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt  of the notice from the Collector under section  12, sub-section (2), or within six months from  the date of the Collector's award, whichever  period shall first expire.”

“30. Dispute as to apportionment.—When the  amount of compensation has been settled under  section  11,  if  any  dispute  arises  as  to  the  apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or  as to the persons to whom the same or any part  thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such  dispute to the decision of the Court.”

10. From the order dated 29.10.1993 passed in L.A.R. No.  

75/1992,  it  is,  inter  alia,  clear  that  there  was  a  dispute  

amongst the land owners (the appellants are one set of such  

land  owners)  in  respect  of  their  respective  shares  in  the  

acquired  land  on  account  of  which  no  apportionment  of  

compensation  was  made  by  the  Collector  who  made  a  

Reference under Section 30 of the Act to the court.  Further,  

in  the  order  dated  29.10.1993  it  is  recorded  that  the  

appellants  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Award  till  the  order  

dated 4.9.1991 came to be passed in the Reference under  

Section 30.  In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) this  

Court has held that the expression “the date of the award”  

8

Page 9

used  in  proviso  (b)  to  Section  18(2)  of  the  Act  must  be  

understood  to  mean  the  date  when  the  award  is  either  

communicated  to  the  party  or  is  known  by  him  either  

actually or constructively.  It was further held by this Court  

that it will be unreasonable to construe the words “from the  

date of the Collector’s award” used in the proviso to Section  

18 in a literal or mechanical way.  In the present case, it has  

already been noticed that a finding has been recorded by  

the Reference Court in its order dated 29.10.1993 that “the  

petitioners had no knowledge about the passing of   

the award till the date of payment of compensation   

on  5.9.1991  because  they  were  held  entitled  to  

receive  the  compensation  after  the  decision  of   

Reference under Section 30 dated 4.9.1991.”   

11. What transpires from the above is that it is for the first  

time on 4.9.1991 (date of the order under Section 30 of the  

Act)  that  the  appellants  came  to  know  that  they  were  

entitled to compensation and the quantum thereof.  It is not  

in dispute that the Reference under Section 18 was made  

9

Page 10

within  6  weeks  from the  said  date  i.e.  4.9.1991.   In  the  

above facts, it is difficult to subscribe to the view taken by  

the High Court to hold that the Reference under Section 18  

was barred by limitation.

12. A cursory glance of the provisions of Sections 18 and 30  

of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some  

overlapping  between  the  provisions  inasmuch  as  both  

contemplate  reference  of  the  issue  of  apportionment  of  

compensation  to  the  Court.   But,  a  closer  scrutiny  would  

indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely  

different  circumstances.   While  Section  18  applies  to  

situations where the apportionment made in the Award is  

objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies  

when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector  

on account of conflicting claims.  In such a situation one of  

the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of  

the question of apportionment to the Court under Section 30  

of  the  Act.    The  other  is  to  relegate  the  parties  to  the  

remedy of a suit.   In either situation,  the right to receive  

10

Page 11

compensation  under  the  Award  would  crystallize  after  

apportionment is made in favour of a claimant.   It  is only  

thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced  

compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in  

whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by  

the Court in the reference under Section 30 or in the civil  

suit, as may be.

13. The decision of this Court in  Dr. G.H. Grant  Vs. The  

State  of  Bihar  (supra)  would  also  support  the  above  

conclusion.  In the aforesaid case, an Award was made by  

the Collector on 25.3.1952.  On 5.5.1952, the owner applied  

under  Section  18  for  a  Reference  to  the  court  for  

enhancement of the compensation payable to him.  While  

the matter was so situated, by notification dated 22.5.1952  

issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 30 of  

1950,  the estate of  the owner vested in  the State.    The  

possession of the land was taken over on 21.08.1952 under  

Section 16 of the Act.  On 15.10.1952, a Reference under  

Section 30 was sought on behalf of the State.  After noticing  

11

Page 12

the different situations in which the provisions of Sections 18  

and 30 of the Act would apply, this Court proceeded to hold  

the Reference sought by the State of Bihar under Section 30  

of the Act to be competent in law on the ground that after  

the award was passed by the Collector the land had vested  

in  the State  by  virtue  of  the  notification dated 22.5.1952  

under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.  On a  

logical  extension  of  the  principle  laid  down  in  Dr.  G.H.  

Grant Vs. The State of Bihar (supra) the State would have  

been entitled in law to claim enhanced compensation under  

Section 18 of the Act once its entitlement to  

receive  such  compensation  is  to  be  decided  in  its  favour  

under Section 30.  This is what has happened in the present  

case.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the High Court  

had  erred  in  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State  and  

reversing the order dated 29.10.1993 passed by the Second  

Additional District Judge, Beed.  The award of compensation  

in the instant case having been made by the Collector as far  

12

Page 13

back as in  the year 1985 and the amount involved being  

exceedingly small  we have considered the basis on which  

enhancement  of  compensation  was  made  by  the  learned  

Reference  Court  in  its  order  dated  29.10.1993.   On  such  

scrutiny, we do not find any error in the view taken by the  

learned Reference Court.  Therefore, in the peculiar facts of  

the case,  while allowing this appeal  and setting aside the  

order dated 09.09.2008 passed by the High Court we deem  

it proper to restore the order dated 29.10.1993 passed by  

the Second Additional District Judge in L.A.R. No.75 of 1995.

…………..….…………………CJI.                                          [P. SATHASIVAM]                     

…….…….……..………………………J.                                         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI]      

…….…….……..………………………J.                                         [RANJAN GOGOI]                     NEW DELHI DECEMBER 06, 2013.

13