1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6003­6004/2018    

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516­27517/2014)

Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade        …Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra Through the Collector       … Respondent (s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6006­6007/2018       (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.16339­16340/2018) (Arising out of SLP (C)………….CC No. 17187/2014)

JUDGMENT    

N. V. RAMANA ,  J.    

Civil Appeal Nos.6003­6004/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516­27517/2014)

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order

dated 14.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 116 of 1996

and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996.

REPORTABLE

2

3. A brief reference to facts of the case may be necessary for

the  disposal  of this  case.  The predecessor interest  of the

appellant herein was the owner of the property in dispute.

In the year 1985, the disputed  land, was proposed to be

acquired by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC Corporation,

Amravati for construction of city service terminus at

Amravati. Required Notification under Section 126 (4) of the

MRTP Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition

Act was published in the Government Gazette dated

05.12.1985.  Thereafter the  objections from  the interested

parties were heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Zilla Parishad  Works, Amravati. By a final order dated

30.11.1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an

award, wherein an amount of Rs. 5,83,366/­ was payable

by the respondent authorities to the appellant herein. On

21.12.1987, the predecessor interest of the appellant

received a notice from the collector/Land Acquisition Officer

informing them about the award being passed on

30.11.1987, which is reproduced as under­

3

It may be noted that the actual award was not enclosed with

the aforesaid notice and the predecessor interest of the

appellant received the certified copy of the award only on

03.02.1988. On 09.02.1988, the predecessor interest of the

appellant,  aggrieved by the compensation awarded to him

by the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer, filed  a reference

against the award for enhancement of compensation under

You are hereby given notice that you are being treated as person interested in the above­mentioned case. In the said case on 30.11.1987, I, have pronounced the following Award under sub­section 1 of Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

(1)The area of the land is 704.31 sq. meters in plot No. 3.

(2)The amount of Rs. 2,58,849.00 as compensation be given for the land.

(3)The amount of compensation has been divided as follows:­

….. …..

(2) The amount payable to you is Rs.2,58,849.00. You personally or through authorized representative should remain present  before  me  on  28.12.1987.  You  can receive the compensation under protest so that there is no impediment in your right to send reference to the Civil Court in respect of this case.

4

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the

predecessor interest of the appellant, had received the

award amount under protest, that the reference for

enhancement was pending.

4. The Reference Court (Court of Civil Judge), after hearing the

parties concerned, partly allowed the reference and

increased the compensation from Rs. 110/­ per square

meter to Rs. 210/­ per square meter. It may not be out of

context to  note that  respondent  authority  had not raised

any issue on limitation.  

5. Aggrieved, both parties, filed Cross appeals being First

Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and

the present  matter  was tagged along  with various other

similar petitions. The High Court by order dated,

07.10.2010, while remanding the matter back to the

Reference Court on the issue of limitation, kept the matter

pending before the High Court in the following manner­

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Record and proceedings along with the copy of Section 12(2) notices, which were sought to be produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders before this Court at

5

the time of the arguments that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to refer the issue of limitation to the reference Court from whose judgments, the appeals are preferred by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  since the  reference  Court  has omitted and failed to frame and try the issue of limitation, which essentially ought to have been decided before  deciding  the reference applications on merit.

Hence,  by  keeping  all these first  appeals pending in High Court, the issue of limitation is referred to the reference Court for trial after granting  an  opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings on the issue of limitation and also to tender evidence on the said  issue. The reference Court is directed to try the issue of limitation in all these cases within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the  parties  before the reference  Court and shall return the record to this Court and shall return the record to this Court together with  its findings on the  issue of limitation along with the reasons therefor.

6. On remand, the reference Court granted opportunity to the

parties to lead evidence  and upon hearing  the  parties, it

passed judgment and order dated 11.10.2011. The reference

court, found that the predecessor interest had filed the

reference for enhancement, before the expiry of the

limitation as they became aware of the contents of the

6

award only on 03.02.1988 and not when a notice informing

the award was sent.

7. The High court resumed hearing of the case, after receiving

the order of the Reference Court on remand. The High Court

again dealt with the contention concerning the issue of

limitation and concluded, by order dated 14.07.2014, that

the appellants herein, had not filed the reference for

enhancement of compensation within the time limitation, in

the following manner­

10. The next submission made by Mr. K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, is that the details about the Award in order to raise a challenge or grounds to be taken in the reference Application, could be available only after obtaining certified copy of the Award and a mere visit to the office of the Land Acquisition officer for receipt of compensation on 28th  December, 1987 cannot be taken to mean that the claimants were posted with the details of the Award in order to raise a challenge. It is an admitted fact that all the claimants received compensation on 28   th    December, 1987 and, therefore, constructively and practically, they must be posted with the knowledge about the contents and  details of the award   .

7

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant is

in appeal before this Court.

9. The main contention canvassed by the appellants, in these

Civil  Appeals, is  whether an effective  notice of the award

was provided to the appellant herein, as per the mandate of

Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?  

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner,  Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,

relies on the judgment of  Premji Nathu v. State of

Gujarat and Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 250, wherein this court

has observed as under­

20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the  conclusion recorded by the Reference Court, which has been approved by the High Court that the application filed by the appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable.

21.     A careful reading of the averments  contained in  Para  2  of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued  by the  Collector under  Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22­2­ 1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8­4­1985 for making a

8

reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference.

22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application filed on 8­4­1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious error by approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2)  was  not  accompanied  by  a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise of right vested in the appellant to seek reference under Section 18(1).

(emphasis supplied)

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government,

has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law.

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid

observations are squarely applicable to the present case as

the notice dated 4.12.1987, was not accompanied with the

award. In this case, there could not have been a valid notice

9

of the award, by  letter dated 4.12.1987, under sub­section

(2) of Section 12 of the Land  Acquisition  Act, until the

appellant received a certified copy of the award, which he

did on 03.02.1988. Therefore, the reference for

enhancement  was, accordingly, not barred by limitation.

12. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case,

we set  aside the  order  of the  High Court  concerning the

point of limitation and remand the matters back for fresh

consideration on  merits of the case  inter alia, as to the

quantum of  compensation.  Taking into  consideration, the

long pendency, we request the High Court to dispose of the

matter expeditiously.

13. The appeals are disposed of in the afore­stated terms.

Civil Appeal Nos.6006­6007 of 2018  

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16339­16340/2018) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. ………….CC No. 17187 of 2014)

14. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.  

15. Application for deletion of respondent no. 3 in Special Leave

Petition arising out of First Appeal No. 35 of 1996 is

allowed.

16. Leave granted.

10

17. As these appeals are filed against the same impugned

judgment and order dt. 14.07.2014 passed by the  High

Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and having

the same question of law, these appeals are also disposed of

in a sequel to the discussion set out above.

…………………………..J.                                                          (N. V. Ramana)

…………………………..J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

New Delhi 4th July, 2018.

11