1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2008
ig WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.642 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2008
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
2
DATE OF DECISION : 28TH APRIL, 2009.
For ap proval an d signature of :
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.V.MORE, J.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers m ay be ):
allowed to see the judg me nt ? )
2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not ? ):
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair ):
copy of the judgment ? )
4. Whether this case involves a substantial ):
q uestion of law as to the interpretation of )
the Constitution of India, 1950, or any )
Order m a de thereu n der ? )
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil ):
Judges ? )
6. Whether the case involves a n important ):
q uestion of law a n d whether a copy of the )
judgme nt should be sent to Nagpur, )
Aurangabad & Goa Offices? )
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2008
Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade & Ors. …
Petitioners.
(Claimants)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008
Shri Bhagwat Bhau Lokare (deceased)
ig ….
Petitioners.
through L.HR's. (Claimants)
Mahad u Bhagwat Lokare & Ors.
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ...
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008
Smt. Bhagarthi Changdeo Gore (Died) ….
Petitioners.
through LR’s Smt. Kamal H. Upase (Claimants)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2008
Smt. Sujata Rajara m Pansare ….Petitioner
(Claimant)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
4
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2008
Shri Vallimo ha m ma d Niza mso Mulani & Anr. ….
Petitioners.
(Claimants)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2008
Smt. Phulabai Dattatraya Shingare ….
Petitioner
V/s.
ig (Claima nt)
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ....
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2008
Shri Khanderao Gan pat Gore ….Petitioner
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2008
Shri Raghuveer Bhagwan Mahingade & Anr. ….
Petitioners.
(Claimants)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
Mr. T. D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
5
Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, AGP for the Respo n de nts.
—————
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2008
Shri Vishwanath Dina nath Gore (deceased) ….
Petitioners.
through LR’s (Claima nts)
1. Shri Jalindar Vishwanath Gore & Ors.
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.
….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2008
Shri Santosh Kashinath Bhise ….Petitioner.
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2008
Smt. Pusp ha Nagnath Deokar ….Petitioner.
(Claimant)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.642 OF 2008
Shri Santosh Kashinath Bhise ….Petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
6
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2008
Shri Harakchan d Bhagchan d Dhoka ….
Petitioner.
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
ig WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2008
Shri Bhagwan Shankar Gore & Ors. ….Petitioners.
(Claima nts)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
Mr. T D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.
Mrs. A.A. Mane, AGP for the Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2008
Shri Avinash Sripati Gore & Ors. ….
Petitioners.
(Claima nts)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2008
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
7
Shri Kisan Bhagwan Madane & Anr. ….
Petitioners.
(Claima nts)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 647 OF 2008
Shri Ramcha n dra Dina nath Gore (Died) ….
Petitioners.
Through LR’s : (Claima nts)
1. Yamunabai Ramcha n dra Gore & Ors.
V/s.
Respo n de nt
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008
Smt. Janabai Gajendra Kambale ….
Petitioner.
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2008
Shri Bhan u das Dhar ma Gore ….Petitioner
(Claima nt)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
WITH
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
8
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2008
Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade & Ors. ….
Petitioners.
(Claima nts)
V/s.
The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. ….
Respo n de nts.
Mr. T. D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.
Ms. S.P. Manchekar, AGP for the Respon de nts.
CORAM : R. V. MORE, J.
ig DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel ap pearing for the respective p arties.
2. Rule in all the above Civil Revision Applications. By consent, Rule
is m a de returnable forthwith an d heard finally.
3. The issue involved in above Civil Revision Applications is one and
the sa me therefore, they are being disposed of by this co m mo n order.
The facts involved in the Civil Revision Application No.631 of 2008 are
being referred for this co m mo n order.
4. All these Revisions take exception to the order dated 20th October,
2005 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the
Petitioners’ reference filed u n der section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
9
5. Brief facts giving rise to the prese nt Revisions are as follows :
i. The Petitioners’ lan d is acquired for developing Kurduwadi
Bypass Road u n der the Land Acquisition Act. Notification u n dersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 (hereafter called
“the said Act”) was issued o n 6th Dece m ber, 2001. Thereafter,
declaration u n der section 6 of the said Act was issued andp u blished in the Govern me nt Gazette o n 18th March, 2002 a nd the
Respo n de nt No.2 thereafter passed Award u n der section 11 of the
said Act o n 2n d April, 2004. There is n o dispute that the Award waspassed in the absence of the Petitioners. The n otice of the Award
as conte m plated u n der section 12(2) of the said Act was thereafter
issued a n d the Petitioners received the same o n 24th Nove mber,
2004. The Petitioners im mediately thereafter o n 23rd Dece m ber,2004 m a de a reference u n der section 18 of the said Act to the
Respo n de nt No.2, Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer, as stated above, by the imp ugned orderrejected the Reference an d he nce the present Revision.
6. The Respo n de nt No.2 rejected the Petitioners’ reference on three
grou n ds, n a mely, (i) the Reference is n ot m a de within the period of six
m o nt hs fro m the date of declaration of Award, (ii) that the Petitioners
accepted the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation without protest an d (iii) that the
Petitioners did n ot file a ny objection, reply n or raised a ny claim in
respo nse to the n otice u n der section 9(3) (4) of the Act.
7. Having heard the learned Cou nsel for the respective parties a nd
having perused the imp ugned order alongwith relevant records, I find,
all the three grou n ds on which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected are
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
10
devoid of any substance. The first groun d for rejection of reference is
that the reference u n der section 18 of the Act was n ot m a de within the
period stipulated in sub-section 2 of section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 reads as follows:
“Provided that every such ap plication shall be m a de, –
(a) if the person m aking it was present or represented before
the Collector at the time when he m a de his award, within
six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice
from the Collector u n der section 12, sub-section (2), or
within six m o nths fro m the date of the Collector’s award,
whichever period shall first expire.”
The clause (a) of the proviso ap plies where the perso n who has
m a de the ap plication was present or represented before the Collector at
the time when award was m a de. This clause has no ap plication in the
prese nt case, since the Petitioners were n either present before the
Collector n or ha d they bee n represented when the award was m a de.
Un der clause (b) of the proviso, the ap plication has to be filed within the
period of six weeks from receipt of the notice fro m the Collector u n der
sub-section (2) of section 12 or within six m o nt hs fro m the date of the
Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. The words “date of
the Collector’s award” were interpreted in the judg me nt of the Apex
Court in Raja Harish Chan dra Raj Singh Versus Deputy Land Acquisition
Officer, (1962) SCR 676 : A.I.R.1961 Supre me Court 1500. The Apex Court
held that the award of the Collector being in the n ature of ten der or offer
m a de by the Collector o n behalf of the Govern me nt to the owner of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
11
property for his accepta nce, the m aking of award as properly u n derstood
m ust involve the co m m u nication of the offer to the party concerned.
Conseque ntly, the Apex Court in paragrap h 5 held as follows:
“Therefore, if the award m a de by the Collector is in
law n o m ore tha n an offer m a de o n behalf of the
Govern me nt to the owner of the pro perty the n them aking of the award as pro perly u n derstood m ust
involve the co m m u nication of the offer to the
party concerned. That is the n or mal require me ntu n der the co ntract law an d its ap plicability to cases of
excluded.
award m a de u n der the Act can not b e reaso nably
Thus considered the date of the award
ca n not be deter mined solely by reference to the timewhen the award is signed by the Collector or
delivered by hi m in his office; it m ust involve the
consideration of the q uestion as to when it wasknown to the p arty concerned either actually or
constructively. If that be the true position the n the
literal an d m ec ha nical construction of the words “the
date of the award” occurring in the relevant sectionwould n ot be ap propriate.”
In paragrap h 6 of the above judgment, the Apex Court has further
held as follows:
“6. There is yet another point which leads to the
sa me co nclusion. If the award is treated as an
ad ministrative decision taken by the Collector in the
m atter of the valuation of the property sought to be::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
12acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately
affects the rights of the owner of the pro perty a n d inthat sense, like all decisions which affect perso ns, it is
essentially fair an d just that the said decision shouldbe co m m u nicated to the said p arty. The knowledge
of the party affected by such a decision, either actual
or constructive, is a n essential ele me nt which m ustbe satisfied before the decision can be brought into
force. Thus considered the m aking of the award
can not consist m erely in the p hysical act of writingthe award or signing it or even filing it in the office of
the Collector, it m ust involve the co m m u nication of
the said award to the party concerned either actually
or constructively. If the award is pro nou nced in theprese nce of the party whose rights are affected by it it
can be said to be m a de whe n pro nou nced. If the date
for the pro nou nce me nt of the award isco m m u nicated to the party an d it is accordingly
pro no u nced o n the date previously a n no u nced the
award is said to be co m m u nicated to the said party
even if the said party is n ot actually present o n thedate of its pro nou nce me nt. Similarly if without
n otice of the date of its pro nou nce me nt, a n d award is
pro no u nced an d a party is not present the award canbe said to be m a de when it is co m m u nicated to the
party later. The knowledge of the party affected by
the award, either actually or co nstructive, being a n
essential require me nt of fairplay an d n atural justice
the expression “the date of the award” used in the::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
13proviso m ust m ea n the date when the award is either
co m m u nicated to the party or is known by him eitheractually or constructively. In our opinio n, therefore,
it would be reasonable to construe the words “fro mthe date of the Collector’s award” used in the proviso
to Section 18 in a literal or m ec ha nical way.”
The law laid down by the Apex Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj
Singh case, supra, has recently been followed in Purshotta m b hai
Magan b hai Patel an d Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005), 7
Supre me Court Cases 431.
8. In the present case, the Petitioners were not before the Collector
whe n the award was m ad e o n 2n d April, 2004. Conseque ntly, knowledge
of m aking of the award can be attributed to the Petitioners only whe n
the award ca me to co m m u nicated either actually or constructively
following the law laid dow n by the Apex Court. Even, if the n otice u n der
section 12 (2) is taken as the date o n which such knowledge can be
imp uted, the period of six weeks u n der clause (b) of the proviso of
section 18 sub-section(2) would begin to ru n with effect from the date
of service of that notice. The reference u n d er section 18 was m a de on
23rd Dece m ber, 2004 i.e. within the period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of notice u n der section 12(2). In the circu msta nces, Responde nt
No.2 co m mitted a n error in rejecting the Petitioners’ reference on the
grou n d that the sa me is barred by limitation by co m p uting the period of
six m o nths from the date of declaration of the award by the Collector.
The m ere signing of the award or filing of the award in the Office of the
Collector ca n not be regarded as date of the award of the Collector for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
14
the p ur pose of section 18, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
The Respo n de nt No.2 therefore, co m mitted a n error in rejecting the
ap plication o n that grou n d.
9. The n ext groun d o n which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected
is that the Petitioners’ accepted the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation without
any protest. This grou nd is also without a ny m erit, in view of the Apex
Court judgme nt in Ajit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Pu njab reported in (1994)
4 Supre me Court Cases 67. The Apex Court in paragrap h 5 of the said
judgme nt held that the filing of ap plication for reference u n der section
18 would itself m a nifest the Appellant’s inte ntion a n d therefore, the
protest against the award of the Collector was implied notwithstanding
the acceptance of co m pe nsation. Thus, the reference could n ot have
bee n rejected on the grou nd that the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation was not
accepted u n der protest.
10. The last grou n d on which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected is
that the Petitioners did n ot file any objection /reply to section 9 (3) (4)
n otice, is misconceived in view of the a me n d me nt to section 25 in the
year 1984.
Prior to 1984, section 25(1) read as follows:
“25. Rules as to a mo u nt of co mp e nsation:
(i) When the ap plicant has m a de a claim to co mp e nsation,
p ursua nt to any n otice given u n der section 9, the a mo u nt
awarded to hi m by the Court shall n ot exceed the a mo u nt
so claimed or be less tha n the a mou nt awarded by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
15
Collector u n der section 11.”
11. By virtue of a me n d me nt by Act 68 of 1984, section 25 was
a me n ded a n d substituted as follows:
“Section 25 : The a mou nt of co m pe nsation awarded by the
Court shall not be less tha n the a mo u nt awarded by theCollector u n der section 11.”
Thus, the restriction that the a mou nt of co m pe nsation awarded
by the Court, shall n ot exceed the a mo u nt claimed u n der section 9 (3)
(4), is re moved.
Un der substituted section 25, the a mo u nt of
co m pe nsation awarded by the Court shall not be less tha n the a mou nt
awarded by the Collector u n der section 11. Reading of u na me n ded and
substituted section 25 together m akes it clear that the a mo u nt of
co m pe nsation awarded by the Court does n ot depe n d u po n claim to
co m pe nsation p ursua nt to any notice u n der section 9 (3) (4). It appears
that the objection regarding n o n-filing of the claim in p ursuance of
section 9 (3) (4) notice was raised relying u po n the u na me n de d section
25 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since, this section is substituted by
Amend me nt Act 68 of 1984, the Petitioners’ ap plication could not have
bee n rejected o n the grou n d of no n-filing of the claim in p ursua nt to
Section 9 notice.
12. In the facts a nd circu msta nces m e ntioned above, all the Revision
Applications succeeds. The order imp ugned in the revisions is
accordingly, q uashed an d set aside.
13. The Respo n de nt No.2 shall verify the service of n otice u n der
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::
16
section 12(2) o n the respective Petitioners an d if the reference is m a de
within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, the n
he shall entertain the reference an d take further ap propriate action in
accordance with the law.
14. Rule is m a de absolute accordingly in all the above Revision
Applications with n o order as to cost.
(R.V.MORE, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:33:14 :::