Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No 492/2022, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein and has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Reference Court, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) as barred by limitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-judgement-on-non-registration-of-health-workers/
1
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the appellants approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the special leave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants 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 merits.
2 It is submitted that therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the time taken by the appellants in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court and thereafter before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings is required to be excluded.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-the-act-2013/
1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No 3 has vehemently submitted that the time limit to file reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation would be six months from the date of receipt of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894.
It is submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench specifically observed that the objections raised by the appellants before making of the award were mainly related to the amount of compensation and they are not stated to have applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading to the inference that either they were satisfied with the award of compensation or have missed the time limit for applying for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
However, it is required to be noted that the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petition before the High Court (in the earlier round of litigation) they challenged the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observed that it is too late to make any grievance, still the High Court while dismissing the writ petition reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, the High Court ought to have interfered 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/deemed-lapse-of-land-acquisition-proceedings-4/
As observed hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ Petition No 1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. We direct the reference court to finally decide and dispose of the reference within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order.
Case Title: MANHARLAL SHIVLAL PANCHAL Vs. THE DY COLLECTOR AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (2022 INSC 1272)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009004-009004 / 2022
