Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2043 OF 2011

SHAKUNTLA DEVI       ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF H. P. AND OTHERS              ... RESPONDENT (S)

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

KURIAN, J.:

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the  

judgment  dated  01.11.2010  of  the  High  Court  of  Himachal  

Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 2535 of 2010 whereby the High  

Court dismissed the writ petition.

3. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition  

Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’) was issued at the instance of the  

State of Himachal Pradesh–Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of  

widening of Theog Kotkhai-Hatkoti road (T.K.H.) on 13.06.2008.  

Being  a  time  bound  project,  having  found  that  acquisition  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

proceedings might take a long time, the respondents proposed  

settlement of the compensation on negotiations and acquired  

the land accordingly. It appears that in respect of the land of  

the  appellant,  a  Negotiated  Award  dated  11.09.2008  was  

passed wherein  it  was  stated  that  the  land value  had been  

fixed on negotiations and the appellant shall not be entitled for  

seeking any enhancement of the market value under Section  

18  of  the  Act.  It  was  also  specifically  stated  in  the  said  

Negotiated Award that “… But they are entitled for the market  

value for the structures and trees (if any) separately, as per the  

market value which will be determined by the expert agencies  

in  due  course  of  time  at  the  time  of  announcement  of  

Supplementary Award along with the market value of the land,  

which will be notified by the government under Section 4(1) of  

the Act if required to be acquired at a later stage. …”  

4. Thereafter,  according  to  respondents,  a  supplementary  

Negotiated Award was passed on 18.12.2009, in continuation of  

the Negotiated Award dated 11.09.2009 in respect of the land.  

It is stated therein that, as per the valuation report provided by  

the  Superintending  Engineer  (PWD)  and the  Deputy  Director  

(Horticulture), total value of the building and trees was fixed at  

2

Page 3

Rs.37,34,264/-,  which  according  to  the  respondents  and  as  

stated in the Negotiated Award, “this valuation was negotiated  

as full and final rates and no statutory benefits under the Act  

will be admissible over and above.” However, it is also stated in  

the  said  Award  that  “this  award  was  enhanced  in absentia,  

therefore, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act be issued to  

interest holders immediately”.

5. It  is  the case of  the appellant  that  the said  Negotiated  

Supplementary  Award  dated  18.12.2009  is  not  a  negotiated  

one and the rates have been fixed unilaterally. That it is not  

negotiated is evident from the Award itself wherein it is stated  

that  the  rates  have  been  fixed  as  per  the  report  of  the  

Superintending  Engineer  (PWD)  and  Deputy  Director  

(Horticulture)  and  still  further  that  the  Award  has  been  so  

passed  in  absentia,  it  was  specifically  stated  in  the  

Supplementary Award that notice under Section 12(2) would be  

issued.  

6. The High Court, in the impugned judgment took the view  

that  the  writ  petitioner,  having  accepted  the  land  value  on  

negotiated  settlement,  was  not  justified  in  seeking  any  

3

Page 4

statutory benefits. However, it was noted at paragraph 3 of the  

judgment that:

“3.  As  far  as  the  payment  compensation  for  structures  and  trees  is  concerned,  it  is  obvious  that the settlement was only with regard to the  value  of  the  land  and  not  with  regard  to  the  structure and trees and, therefore, supplementary  award in this regard was passed.”  

7. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State,  however,  

submits that the Negotiated Supplementary Award is  only in  

continuation  of  the  original  Award  for  land,  and  therefore,  

Supplementary Negotiated Award should be read as part of the  

Award on land value. It is also contended that having accepted  

the compensation, there is no justification in turning down and  

seeking further benefits.

8. We are unable to appreciate the contentions advanced by  

the learned counsel for the State. One thing to be noticed is  

that the appellant–writ petitioner had not accepted the Award;  

if  so,  she  would  not  have  pursued  the  inadequacy  of  

compensation before the High Court in the writ petition. Section  

18 of the Act entitles interested persons who had not accepted  

the Award to seek a reference to the Court. No doubt, as per  

Section 18(2) of the Act, the reference should be made within  

4

Page 5

six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector  

under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the  

date of Collector’s Award, whichever period shall  first expire.  

The  Negotiated  Supplementary  Award  seems  to  have  been  

made  on  18.12.2009  and  the  writ  petition  was  filed  on  

20.05.2010.  That apart,  in the State of  H.P.,  the Collector is  

entitled to extend the period for receipt of the application for  

reference beyond six weeks and upto six months, in case he is  

satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause  

for making the application. By virtue of Himachal Pradesh Act  

17  of  1986,  w.e.f.,  22.07.1986,  Section  18  of  the  Act  was  

amended  by  adding  a  proviso.  The  said  proviso  reads  as  

follows:

“Provided  further  that  the  Collector  may  entertain  an  application  under  this  section  after  the expiry of the period of six weeks but within a  period  of  six  months,  if  he  is  satisfied  that  the  applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from  making the application in time.”

9.  As we have noted above, this is an Award announced in  

absentia and there is a direction to serve notice under Section  

12 (2) of the Act. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed  

by the State before the High Court that the amount awarded,  

5

Page 6

as  per  the  Supplementary  Negotiated  Award,  had  been  

received by the appellant only on 01.06.2010, after filing the  

writ petition before the High Court on 20.05.2010.

10. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had not accepted the  

Award,  there  being  an  objection  with  regard  to  amount  of  

compensation, particularly regarding statutory benefits. It was  

specifically stipulated in the Negotiated Award pertaining to the  

land, announced on 11.09.2008 that “… The interested persons  

are not entitled for seeking enhancement of market value of  

land  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  ...”.  Such  a  stipulation  is  

conspicuously absent in the Supplementary Negotiated Award  

on  the  structures  and  trees  announced  on  18.12.2009,  

impugned before the High Court in writ petition. Filing the writ  

petition before the expiry of six months from the date of the  

Negotiated  Award,  would  also  show  that  the  appellant  had  

taken steps to vindicate her grievance regarding insufficiency  

of compensation, by approaching the High Court under Article  

226  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  That  step  taken  by  the  

appellant is, in any case, within six months.

11. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that in the  

peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  for  doing  

6

Page 7

complete justice, the appellant should be given an opportunity  

to make a request for reference under Section 18 of the Act  

before  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  for  enhancement  of  

compensation and for all  other original benefits in respect of  

the Supplementary Negotiated Award.

12. If  such an application for  reference is  made before the  

Land Acquisition Collector who passed the Award within four  

weeks, the same shall be referred to the Court of competent  

jurisdiction within a month thereafter and the said Reference  

Court  shall  dispose  of  the  reference  expeditiously  and  

preferably with a period of six months thereafter.

13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  There shall be no  

order as to costs.

.......................................J.          (KURIAN JOSEPH)

……………………………………J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi; March 2, 2016.

7