1 FA1213.11.sxw Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2011 Nisar Ahmed Ramzan-Momin Residing at 127/1, R.N.Compound, Kaneri, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist.Thane. ... Appellant v/s 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dist. Thane. 2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr.R.S.Datar for the appellant. Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.N.R.Bubna for respondent No.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 24TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.: 1. Appeal is admitted. 2. Respondents waive service. 3. Print dispensed with, more so, because by the 2 FA1213.11.sxw impugned award the Reference Court has not decided Land Acquisition Reference No.65 of 2011 (old Land Acquisition Reference No.9 of 1999) on merits. The reference has been dismissed by the impugned order and award dated 8.3.2011 on the ground of limitations and as the subject land was reserved for public purpose and, therefore, it could not have any value so as to pay compensation to the land owner. Hence the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties and without paper-book. 4. So far as the ground of limitation is concerned, the Reference Court has observed that the award was passed on 8.2.1996 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the appellant personally. The notice under Section 12(2) was dated 16.3.1996. On what date it was served on the appellant has not been stated in the impugned award. The reference was made on 27.8.1997 and, therefore, as per the Reference Court it was not within six weeks from the date of service of the notice under Section 12(3) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, it was beyond limitation. 5. It is pertinent to note that Writ Petition Nos.2618 of 1996, 2619 of 1996, 2620 of 1996 and 2287 of 1996 were filed before this Court challenging the acquisition of the very 3 FA1213.11.sxw same land and all these petitions came to be decided by common judgment dated 15.7.1997. This Court noted that once the award was passed, the challenge to the acquisition proceedings could not be gone into and the only remedy available to the land owner was to seek an enhancement of the compensation amount in case the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not as per the market value. This Court directed that in case the application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act could be filed within six weeks from the date of the judgment i.e. 15.7.1997, the Collector was directed not to dismiss the application for reference on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the Collector entertained the application filed on 27.8.1997 by the claimant and referred it to the Court for adjudication. From 15.7.1997 to 27.8.1997, in our opinion, is not the period beyond six weeks and, therefore, the application to the Collector was submitted by the claimants within the time limit stipulated by this Court in the common judgment dated 15.7.1997. Once the Collector has not raised the issue of limitation and submitted the reference to the Court for adjudication, the Court should have proceeded further to decide the application, more so in the spirit of the order passed by this Court on 15.7.1997. In our considered view, the application for enhancement was therefore required to be decided by the Reference Court on 4 FA1213.11.sxw its own merits and for raising the issue of limitation. Indeed, such an issue has not been framed in the impugned award but has been decided by the Reference Court. On the face of the guarantee enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the Courts should not adopt a hyper- technical approach on limitations and deprive the land owner of the due compensation. 6. The Reference Court considered the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and noted that the subject plot was reserved for the public purpose in the development plan. The said reference was challenged by the claimant by filing a writ petition before this Court and it was dismissed. On these grounds the Reference Court held that the suit plot had no saleable value. This reasoning of the Reference Court is unsustainable. Even if the plot of land is reserved for a public purpose, it cannot be said that the land owner has no claim of compensation and the reserved property has zero value. The view taken by the Trial Court is grossly erroneous and the market value of the suit plot has to be decided on merits. 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash and set aside the impugned award dated 8.3.2011 and remand Land Acquisition Reference No.65 of 2011 to the Reference Court 5 FA1213.11.sxw for a fresh decision on merits regarding the market value of the suit land. We also direct the Reference Court to decide the reference on remand as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the writ. Undoubtedly, respondent No.3 Corporation shall be added as an opponent No.3 in the reference and the parties may adduce evidence or additional evidence as the case may be. The added respondent may submit its reply, if so desired, within four weeks from today. The parties to appear before the reference Court on 5.9.2011. 8. Writ to go forthwith. 9. No order as to costs. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 FA1213.11.sxw