Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14248 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8583 of 2013)

Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao & Ors.            .....Appellants

Versus

Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors.     …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High  

Court of  Judicature of  Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated  

10th October,  2012,  in  Writ  Appeal  No.1274  of  2012,  this  

appeal has been preferred by the land owners, whose lands  

have been acquired.

Page 2

2

3. The issue involved in this appeal  is  whether Reference  

Applications filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the  

Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

Act”),  was  beyond  statutory  period.  For  the  purpose  of  

ascertaining  the  said  fact,  it  would  be  necessary  to  record  

some  of  the  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  the  acquisition  

proceedings.

4. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of  

acquiring the land for establishment of Auto Nagar at Eluru  

had been issued on 27th August, 1993.  In pursuance of the  

said notification, notification under Section 6 of the Act had  

been published on 8th October, 1993.  Looking at the facts of  

the  case,  the  Authorities  had  invoked  urgency  clause  and  

enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been dispensed with.  

5. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforestated  acquisition  

proceedings,  the  land  owners  i.e.  the  appellants  had  

challenged the validity of notification under Section 6 of the

Page 3

3

Act  and  had  also  challenged  invocation  of  urgency  clause,  

whereby  enquiry  under  Section  5-A  of  the  Act  had  been  

dispensed  with.  The  said  petition  had  been  allowed  by  the  

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and declaration under Section  

6 of the Act had been quashed.  It was held by the High Court  

that  enquiry  under  Section  5-A  of  the  Act  had  been  

mechanically  dispensed  with  and  it  was  also  directed  that  

such an enquiry should be held.  The High Court had also  

given time limit for holding the enquiry.   

6. In  pursuance  of  the  aforestated  direction  of  the  High  

Court, once again, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act  

had been made on 7th August, 1996 and subsequently Award  

No.2 of 1998 had been made on 7th January, 1998.

7. Once again, Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998 challenging  

the validity of notification under Section 6 had been filed in  

November, 1998 on the ground that the said notification was  

not  issued  within  the  time  limit  prescribed  under  the  Act.

Page 4

4

Ultimately,  the  said  petition  had  been  dismissed  on  27th  

August, 1999, but being aggrieved by the order of dismissal,  

Writ  Appeal  No.1337  of  1999  had  been  filed  by  appellants  

before the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court.  The  

said appeal had been allowed by the High Court on 23rd July,  

2001 and thereby the acquisition proceedings had come to an  

end.   The  review  application  filed  against  the  judgment  

delivered by the Division Bench had also been rejected by the  

High Court.  

8. In the aforestated circumstances, a Special Leave Petition  

challenging  the  abovestated  judgment  had  been  filed  by  

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited  

(APIIC), for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired  

for establishment of  Auto Nagar.  Leave was granted in the  

said Special Leave Petition, which was recorded as Civil Appeal  

Nos.304-305 of 2005.  An interim order was also passed in the  

said  appeals  for  maintaining  status-quo  with  regard  to

Page 5

5

possession as it existed on 10th January, 2005.  During the  

pendency  of  the  aforestated  appeals  before  this  Court,  the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  had  filed  a  petition  under  Section  

31(2) of the Act before the District Court. The said proceedings  

had been rejected by the District Judge on the ground that the  

acquisition  proceedings  were  pending  before  the  Supreme  

Court  and  the  Supreme  Court  had  given  a  direction  for  

maintaining status-quo.

9. Ultimately, this Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos.304-305  

of  2005  on  15th September,  2011,  whereby  the  judgment  

delivered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court  

in Writ Petition No.1337 of 1999 had been set aside.  Thus,  

ultimately,  the  acquisition  proceedings  were  upheld  by  this  

Court.

10. As  the  acquisition  proceedings  had  been  upheld,  the  

appellants,  being aggrieved by the amount of  compensation,  

had filed Reference Applications under Section 18(1) of the Act

Page 6

6

on 17th October,  2011.  The said reference applications had  

been rejected on the ground of delay by the Land Acquisition  

Officer on 21st January, 2012 as the Award in respect of the  

lands in question had been made on 18th January, 1998.      

11. The  aforestated  proceedings,  whereby  the  reference  

applications had been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer,  

had been challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  

on 4th  August, 2012 by filing Writ Petition No.24806 of 2012.  

The said writ petition had been rejected by the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court on 13th August, 2012 on the ground  

that the reference applications under Section 18(1) of the Act  

had not been filed within the time prescribed under the said  

section. The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge  

on  13th August,  2012  had  been  challenged  by  the  present  

appellants/land owners by filing Writ Appeal No.1274 of 2012,  

which  was  also  dismissed  on  the  same  ground  on  10th  

October, 2012.  

Page 7

7

12. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment dated 10th  

October, 2012, this appeal has been filed by the land owners.  

13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly  

submitted that  the  applications  for  reference  under  Section  

18(1) of the Act ought not to have been rejected on the ground  

of  delay.   The  learned  counsel  fairly  admitted  that  the  

applications under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within  

the time prescribed.  According to him, the said applications  

could  not  be  said  to  have  been  filed  beyond  the  period  of  

limitation  for  the  reason  that  the  proceedings  regarding  

acquisition  had not  been finalized and were pending before  

different courts, namely before the High Court and before the  

Apex Court and stay was operating against the acquiring body.

14. The learned counsel submitted that the acquisition had  

been set aside by the High Court and only by an order dated  

15th September,  2011 passed  by  this  Court  in  Civil  Appeal  

Nos.304-305  of  2005,  the  acquisition  had  been  confirmed.

Page 8

8

The learned counsel further submitted that till the aforestated  

judgment  was  delivered  by  this  Court  confirming  the  

acquisition proceedings,  there was no question of  filing any  

application under  Section 18(1)  because till  that  time there  

was no land acquisition at all.  By virtue of the order passed  

by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the  

acquisition proceedings had been held to be null and void and  

therefore, the question of filing any application under Section  

18(1) of the Act did not arise.

15. Though the Award had been made earlier on 7th January,  

1998,  the  acquisition  proceedings  had  been  thereafter  set  

aside.  The claimants, who are the land owners, did not collect  

the  amount  of  compensation  as  their  lands  had  not  been  

acquired and therefore,  there was no reason for them to be  

aggrieved by  quantification  of  the  amount  of  compensation.  

He  further  added  that  only  upon  getting  intimation  of  the  

order  passed  by  this  Court  dated  15th September,  2011,

Page 9

9

whereby  land  acquisition  proceedings  have  been  confirmed  

and  whereby  the  lands  stood  acquired,  the  question  with  

regard to getting the amount of compensation from the District  

Court  arose  and  only  at  that  time  the  appellants-the  land  

owners,  could  have  thought  about  the  quantum  of  

compensation  awarded  to  them  in  respect  of  their  lands  

acquired.

16. In the aforestated circumstances only on 15th September,  

2011, by virtue of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.  

304-305 of 2005, this Court finally declared that the lands of  

the  appellants  stood  acquired  and therefore,  the  appellants  

filed  applications  under  Section  18(1)  of  the  Act  on  17th  

October, 2011.  He, therefore, submitted that the applications  

under  Section  18(1)  of  the  Act  were  not  beyond the  period  

prescribed under the Act.

17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent-Authorities could not deny the aforestated factual

Page 10

10

aspect with regard to the proceedings which had taken place  

and  the  final  judgment  delivered  by  this  Court  on  15th  

September, 2011.

18. Upon  hearing  the  learned  counsel  and  looking  at  the  

peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, this appeal deserves  

to be allowed.

19. It  is  an admitted fact  that  the  acquisition  proceedings  

had been finally confirmed by the judgment delivered by this  

Court on 15th September, 2011.  Till the said judgment was  

delivered by this Court, there was no acquisition of the land  

and therefore, there was no need for the appellants to file any  

application under Section 18(1) of the Act.  Upon knowing the  

fact  that  the  lands  had  been  acquired  by  virtue  of  the  

judgment dated 15th September, 2011 delivered by this Court,  

the appellants filed the applications under Section 18(1) of Act  

on 17th October, 2011.  In the aforestated circumstances, in  

our opinion, the applications filed under Section 18(1) of the

Page 11

11

Act  should  not  have  been  rejected  as  they  were  filed  

immediately  after  pronouncement  of  the  judgment  by  this  

Court.  

20. For the aforestated reasons, we allow the appeal and set  

aside the judgment delivered by the High Court and we direct  

that  without  going into the issue of  delay or limitation,  the  

applications filed by the appellants under Section 18(1) of the  

Act shall be entertained in accordance with law.

21. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order  

as to costs.

      ………..……………………J.           (ANIL R. DAVE)

    ………..…………………….J.  (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 09, 2015.