| Date of Judgement | 12 December,2022 |
| Court | The Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil |
| Appellant | Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others |
| Respondent | The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others |
| Bench | Mr. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat |
| Civil Appeal Number | 9004 of 2022 |
| Referred to | Land Acquisition Act,1894 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case discussed, an announcement under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to be issued for acquiring the lands. The construction of Gas Compressor Station and necessary installations under the Reliance Gas Transportation, Surat on 30.07.2008. protestation under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 1.6.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Collector declared the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 awarding compensations Rs. 69/- per forecourt cadence, vide award dated 6.4.2011.
Under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 with a dupe of the award was issued to the co-proprietors petitioners on 25.04.2011. The petitioners filed Special Civil operation No.1428/2012 before the High Court gruelling announcements under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 as well as award dated 6.4.2011. The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated7.8.2012 dismissed the said writ solicitation. While dismissing the writ solicitation, the Division Bench reserved liberty with the petitioners to pursue similar remedy as may be available to them for improvement of the compensation or any other relief to which they may be fairly entitled.
Later, considering the liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners reserved by the High Court while dismissing writ solicitationNo.1428/2012, the petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the period specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The petitioners preferred First AppealNo.492/2022 before the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the said first appeal by observing that the Reference Court has correctly dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the data and circumstances of the case. Particularly when the petitioners challenged the accession proceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the special leave solicitation and later within a period of six months from the date of redundancy of the special leave solicitation, the petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to have entertained the same and ought to have considered the reference on graces. It’s submitted that as similar while dismissing Writ PetitionNo.1428/2012, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically reserved liberty in favour of the petitioners to pursue similar remedy as may be available to them for improvement of compensation.
Later when the petitioners filed reference for improvement of the compensation, the same couldn’t have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It’s submitted that thus in the peculiar data and circumstances of the case, recited herein above, the time taken by the petitioners in pursuing the writ solicitation before the High Court and later before this Court challenging the accession proceedings is needed to be barred. It’s submitted that the precious lands of the petitioners have been acquired compulsorily under the vittles of the Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation Rs. 69/- per forecourt cadence only.
It’s submitted that the lands acquired have been positioned in Surat and were veritably precious lands. It’s submitted that the co-proprietors are entitled to just compensation for the acquired lands. Making the above sessions, it’s supplicated to allow the present appeal.
Issues
Whether the construction of Gas Compressor Station and other installations under the Reliance Gas Transportation was a need or not?
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner Side: – petitioner challenged the accession of land and the necessity of the compressor station project in their land. They also claimed that the property was situated at prime location in Surat and the compensation which they received was minimal.
Respondent side: – Counsel from the respondent’s side argued that the petitioner have breached the window of 6 months to claim for the review of the compensation they got. They also replied that the government has due power to acquire land for development project and thus accession can’t be deemed illegal
OBSERVATION
It’s needed to be noted that however in the writ solicitation before the High Court (in the earlier round of action) they challenged the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observed that it’s too late to make any grievance, still the High Court while dismissing the writ solicitation reserved liberty in favour of the petitioners to initiate applicable proceedings for improvement of the compensation.
As similar, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and order passed by the High Court, the compliances made that it’s too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation, those compliances are to be read while considering the prayer of the petitioners challenging the accession proceedings. It appears that the accession was also challenged on the ground that the quantum awarded is shy. To that, the compliances were made by the High Court that it’s too late to raise such a disagreement.
Thus, the High Court ought to have obtruded with the decision of the reference Court dismissing the reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the opinions of this Court in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal(supra) and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil(supra) are concerned, there cannot be any disagreement on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitation for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. still, in the present case, it isn’t the case of blinking the detention in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
JUDGEMENTS
As observed here in above, in the present case, the petitioners challenged the accession proceedings which ended on the redundancy of the special leave solicitation by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and later pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ PetitionNo.1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of redundancy of the special leave solicitation, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original co-proprietors filed a reference operation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In the forenamed two opinions before this Court, there was no similar data. Thus, on data, the forenamed two opinions shall not be applicable to the data of the case on hand. In view of the below and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds.
The reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has been dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of six months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has been verified by the High Court. It’s needed to be noted that the separate petitioners – original co-proprietors, as similar, challenged the accession proceedings as well as the award under Section 12( 2) of the Act, 1894, which ended in redundancy of the special leave solicitation by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The reference operations were filed on 1.7.2013. At this stage, it’s needed to be noted that however in the writ solicitation being SCANo.1428/2012, the award under Section 12( 2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation and though the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ solicitation, still later reserved liberty in favour of the petitioners – original co-proprietors to pursue similar remedy as may be available to them for improvement of compensation or any other relief to which they may be fairly entitled.
In view of that liberty, the petitioners – original co-proprietors later and after redundancy of the special leave solicitation by this Court filed reference. Thus, in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the petitioners to pursue similar remedy as may be available to them for improvement of compensation, the reference operation couldn’t have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18( 2) of the Act, 1894. Within a period of six months from the date of redundancy of the special leave solicitation, the reference was filed. In the special leave solicitation, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original co-proprietors whose precious lands had been acquired challenged the accession proceedings.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the reference court dismissing the writ solicitation/ reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 as barred by limitation are hereby quashed and set away. The matter is remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on graces. We direct the reference court to eventually decide and dispose of the reference within a period of nine months from the date of damage of the present order. The present appeal is consequently allowed. Still, there shall be no order as to costs.
REFERENCES
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2022/december/34.php
This article is written by Taniya Porwal of Lloyd School of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments