FA/475/2008 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL Nos. 475 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 484 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================= DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - Appellant Versus SHANTABEN WD/O MAGANBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR RR MARSHALL for Appellant MR YN RAVANI for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9,1.2.10 MR AJ DESAI, AGP for Defendants No.2-3. ========================================= FA/475/2008 2/9 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 04/03/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. As common questions of law and fact arises in these group of appeals, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. All these First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are by the common appellant-original opponent No.3 - ONGC, challenging the common judgment and award dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.712 of 1996 to 715 of 1996, 717 of 1996 to 722 of 1996 (Main L.A.R.Case No.718 of 1996) in partly allowing the said Land Reference Cases awarding Rs.32.50ps/- per sq.mtr., as additional compensation (over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Land Reference Case No.34/92) along with other consequential statutory benefits available under the Act. FA/475/2008 3/9 JUDGMENT 2.1 The lands in question situated at Village Janor, District Bharuch, were sought to be acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for ONGC and a Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 20.9.1992 and thereafter Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 8.3.1993. Thereafter notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act were served upon the claimants respective land owners. The land owners claimed Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 26.4.1994 awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.mtr. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Rs.5/- per sq.mtr., the respective claimants – original land owners submitted the applications for making the Reference under Section 18 of the Act on 18.8.1994. That thereafter the References were sent to the District Court, Bharuch, which are numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.712 of 1996 to 715 of 1996, 717 of 1996 to 722 of 1996 and L.A.R.Case No.718 of 1996 was treated as main Land Acquisition Reference. FA/475/2008 4/9 JUDGMENT 2.3 It appears that it was the contention and submission on behalf of the acquiring body as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the References were barred by limitation as provided under Section 18 of the Act, and objection with regard to limitation was taken in the written statement as well as written submissions. The Reference Court, without framing the issue with respect to limitation, considered the question of limitation and held that nothing is on record that the claimants were present at the time when the award was declared on 26.4.1994, and therefore when the reference application was submitted on 18.8.1994 considering Section 18 of the Act, the reference application could have been submitted within the period of six months and therefore the same are within the period of limitation. Having held so, and considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court partly allowed the aforesaid References awarding Rs.32.50ps/- per sq.mtr. as additional compensation with other statutory benefits available under the Act. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned FA/475/2008 5/9 JUDGMENT Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.712 of 1996 to 715 of 1996, 717 of 1996 to 722 of 1996 (Main L.A.R.Case No.718 of 1996, the common appellant herein-opponent No.3 – ONGC has preferred the present First Appeals. 3. Shri R.R.Marshall, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-ONGC as well as Mr.A.J.Desai, learned AGP have submitted that the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer at Village Janor, District Bharuch, after due intimation to the original land owners and in their presence on 26.4.1994 and therefore the reference applications were required to be submitted by the original claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of knowledge i.e. 26.4.1994. However, the applications have been submitted on 18.8.1994 beyond the period of limitation i.e. six weeks, and in spite of a specific contention/objection with regard to limitation was raised by the ONGC as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court has not framed any issue with respect to limitation. It is submitted that, if the proper issue would have been framed by the trial court then the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the ONGC both could have produced the FA/475/2008 6/9 JUDGMENT relevant documentary evidences to substantiate their objections with respect to limitation and that the award being declared by the Land Acquisition Officer in presence of the representatives of the original land owners on 26.4.1994 and that the declaration by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.4.1994 was in the knowledge of the original land owners on 26.4.1994. Therefore, it is requested to remand the Land Acquisition References to the Reference Court with a direction to frame proper issue with respect to limitation and to give opportunity to all concerned. 4. Shri Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, while opposing the present First Appeals has submitted that the award was not declared in presence of the claimants on 26.4.1994 as alleged and therefore the reference applications were required to be submitted within the period of six months and having submitted the applications on 18.8.1994, the same were within the period of limitation. However, under instructions from his client, he has fairly conceded that, in view of the fact that the Reference Court has not framed proper issue with respect to limitation, and if the matters are remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the Land Acquisition References FA/475/2008 7/9 JUDGMENT afresh after giving full opportunity to all concerned then he will not have any objection. However, he has submitted that the Court may not express any opinion on the merits with respect to limitation. 5. It is not in dispute that the objections with respect to limitation was raised by the appellant herein – ONGC as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer in the written statement and it was the specific objection on behalf of the acquiring body that the reference applications are barred by limitation, still the Reference Court has not framed the proper issue with respect to the limitation. In view of the broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to remand the matter to the Reference Court for deciding the same afresh by framing the proper issue with respect to limitation, we are not further assigning any reasons for remanding the matter to the Reference Court, and considering the submissions and the broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we propose to remand the matters to the Reference Court for deciding the same afresh after framing proper issue with respect to limitation. We are also of the opinion that when a specific contention/objection with regard to limitation is FA/475/2008 8/9 JUDGMENT raised which goes to the root of the matter, it was incumbent on the part of the Reference Court to frame the issue with respect to limitation and to give adequate opportunity to all concerned to lead the evidence on the point of limitation. 6. For the reasons stated above, all the appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.712 of 1996 to 715 of 1996, 717 of 1996 to 722 of 1996 (Main L.A.R.Case No.718 of 1996) are hereby quashed and set aside. All these matters are remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits after framing proper issue with respect to limitation and after giving an opportunity to all concerned to lead proper evidence on the point of limitation and other aspects. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with respect to limitation in favour of either parties and it will be for the Reference Court to take the proper decision in accordance with law and on merits after considering the evidence that may be led before it. FA/475/2008 9/9 JUDGMENT 7. With these, all First Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( J.R. VORA, J. ) ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/