1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2008 Date of decision: 28.1.2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/ may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? /No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see /No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? /No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important /No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/14-08cra 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2008 1. Shivaji Shankarrao Patil, Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, r/o Shivane Bk., Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. 2. Bhanudas Bhagwantrao Bhosale, Age 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, r/o. Shivane Bk., Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W. Latur, District Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.B.Kale, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. V.D.Rakh, A.G.P., for respondents. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28.1.2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3 2. The agricultural field of the applicants Shivaji and Bhanudas came to be acquired. The moot question raised is, whether the Land Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within limitation and whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the Land Reference by order dt.27.8.2007, contemplating that, it is not within limitation. 3. There is a chequered history of litigation in the matter. To start with, Writ Petition No.1500/2004 was moved by the applicant before this Court. The principal prayer in the said writ petition : "C. To direct the respondents to pay compensation as per award Exhibit `A" along with interest within a period of 15 days from today and for that purpose issue necessary orders." The writ petition is ultimately disposed on 27th July, 2005. Another writ petition, being Writ Petition No.434/2006, was moved seeking benefits of interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Division Bench of this Court disposed the same observing that all these contingencies can be raised in the petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 4 1894. After dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 1500/2004, the applicant approached the authorities on 23rd Feb.,2006 and 19.4.2006, preferring award in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, by order dt.19.1.2007 ( page No.57 of the paper book) rejected the Reference, as it was barred by limitation and refused to remit the same to the District Court. This was subject of challenge in Civil Revision Application No.20/2007. 4. In said Civil Revision Application this Court ( Coram: R.M.Sawant, J.), by order dt.9th July, 2007, directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to take into consideration the relevant facts as regards date of the award, whether notices under Section 12(2) of the said Act were served on the petitioners or not and also the date of the application of the petitioners in the context of Section 18(2) of the said Act. 5. As stated earlier, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by virtue of the order dt. 27.8.2007, rejected the contentions coined by the applicants which order is again impugned and hence present Civil Revision Application. 6. Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, coupled with Section 18(2) of the 5 Act, ordains as under: "12(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award or the amendment thereof made under section 12A to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award or amendment is made." 18.(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award (or the amendment) is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made, (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award (or the amendment), within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award (or the amendment); (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award (or the amendment), whichever period shall first expire." 7. It will be a disdain to interpret that Section 18(2) is to be read segregated from Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. They are bound to be read in juxtaposition. 8. If the above position is clarified, now let us revert to the dates in the matter. The award, as per the knowledge of the applicant herein, was dt.24.2.2003 as he had annexed the copy in Writ Petition No.1500/2004, seeking its quashment with the earlier referred prayer. It is more than clear, the petitioners had such 6 knowledge of the award and, as stated earlier, the writ petition came to be disposed of on 27.7.2005. The minimum requirement, as is expected, in terms of Section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act is, within six months from the date of the Collector's award, as the benefit that at the most could be taken by the applicant is in terms of Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act. 9. The record demonstrates, the applicant was in slumber even from 27.7.2005 to stake redressal for his rights in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the applicant deliberately keeps himself away, he cannot be repeatedly, allowed to perpetuate a wrong committed by addressing that there was no knowledge in terms of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. The law as has been laid down in the matter of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer ( A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1500) needs consideration. Hon'ble Lordships have held in paragraph nos. 5 and 6: "5. Therefore; if the award made by the Collector is in law no more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to, the owner of the property then the making of the award as properly understood must involve the 7 communication of the offer to the party concerned. That is the normal requirement under the contract law and its applicability to cases of award made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus considered the date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office; it must involve the consideration of the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If that be the true position then the literal and mechanical construction of the words "the date of the award" occurring in the relevant section would not be appropriate. 6. There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the' rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, 'is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is 8 pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair-play and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to s. 18 in a literal or mechanical way." 11. This position was discussed in the matter of Ashok Amgonda Birajdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( 2006 (5) ALL MR 548) and this Court ( Coram: Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) held that, it is the knowledge which needs to be imputed, either constrictive or actual, from the date of the award. 12. If the constructive knowledge or the actual knowledge has to be taken into account, 9 and is read together, it is more than clear that, at the time of lodging Writ Petition No. 1500/2004, dt.11th March, 2004, the applicant herein was distinctly aware about passing of the award dt.24th Feb.,2003. 13. The date of award referred in the notice under challenge is dt.17.3.2004, even if that date is taken into consideration, from the disposal of the writ petition No.1500/2004, dt. 27.7.2005, the minimum expectation of exercise was six months; that has also not been adhered to. 14. Taking survey of these aspects, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in rejecting the claim, in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, being beyond the period of limitation. Civil Revision Application lacks merit. Rejected. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/14-08cra