spb/- 1 cra585-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 585 OF 2010 Shri Shankar Ramchandra Nakate ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2010 Shri Mohan Siddheshwar ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 2010 Shri Dilip Vasant Bhuse ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 588 OF 2010 Shri Vijay Vasant Bhuse ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- spb/- 2 cra585-10.sxw WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2010 Shri Sarjerao Bhimrao Patil ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2010 Shri Sarjerao Bhimrao Patil ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 591 OF 2010 Shri Maruti Siddheshwar Nakate ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 592 OF 2010 Shri Madhukar Rajaram Gove ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- spb/- 3 cra585-10.sxw WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 593 OF 2010 Shri Naganath Ramchandra Nakate ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 594 OF 2010 Shri Balappa Sidappa Kengar ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2010 Shri Shankar Shivbala Chaugule & Anr. ... Petitioner. (Org. Applicant). V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2010 Shri Baban Baburao Awatade ... Petitioner. V/s. (Org.Applicant) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners /Applicants in all the CRAs. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in all the CRAs. ----- spb/- 4 cra585-10.sxw CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 Since common questions of law and facts arise in these civil revision applications, all these applications are decided by this common order. 2 The applicants in each of the revision applications are residents of Taluka Mangalwedha in Solapur District. Their lands were acquired for “Ujani Canal Project”. Awards regarding acquisition of their land was published by the Land Acquisition Officer between 29th August, 2000 and 8th August, 2003. Notices under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were served upon them between the period 2nd May, 2005 and 10th June, 2005. Being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded, each of the revision applicant made separate applications to the Land Acquisition Officer under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference to the District Court between 30th June, 2005 to 19th July, 2005. It is not disputed before me that the applications for reference in each of the cases was made within a period of six weeks from the date of service of the notice. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, rejected the applications on the two grounds viz.- (i) that the revision applications spb/- 5 cra585-10.sxw were made after expiry of six months from the date of the Award and therefore, the applications were barred by limitation and, (ii) The amount of compensation was accepted by the revision applicants. 3 Sofar as ground of limitation is concerned, section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act says that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by a written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 prescribes period of limitation for making an application and it reads thus : “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, 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 under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.”. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Supreme Court has held spb/- 6 cra585-10.sxw that the Award of the Collector being in the nature of an offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property for his acceptance, the making of the Award as properly understood must involve the communication of the offer to the party concerned and so considered the date of the award would mean the date on which the award was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. The Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 59 as follows : “59. 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 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.” spb/- 7 cra585-10.sxw In para 61 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows : “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 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 spb/- 8 cra585-10.sxw 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 fairplay 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 section 18 in a literal or mechanical way”. 4 The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh’s case has been followed by it more recently in Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 431. 5 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the period of limitation of six months provided in the Act must be the date from the date of the knowledge, actual or constructive, of the Award. There is nothing on record to show that the revision applicants had a knowledge of the Award before service of notice under section spb/- 9 cra585-10.sxw 12(2). Consequently, the revision applications filed within six weeks of the service of notice under section 12(2) was within limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the first ground of rejection of the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation has to be rejected. 6 As regards the second ground this court in the case of Ashok Amgonda Birajdar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 57, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 4 SCC 67, has held that filing of an application for reference under section 18 would manifest the communication by the applicants of the protest against the Award notwithstanding acceptance of the compensation. Consequently, mere acceptance of the amount of compensation without protest cannot be a ground for the Collector for rejecting the application for reference made to him under section 18(1) of the Act. 7 On either of the grounds on which the Collector refused to make reference, the Collector could not have refused to make a reference. For these reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and the revision applications are allowed and the respondents and the Collector are spb/- 10 cra585-10.sxw directed to make the reference to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks from the receipt of this order. Learned Government Pleader shall intimate this order to the Collector. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order issued by the Associate/ Personal Assistant/ Private Secretary of this Court. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]