Case: VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

any issue on limitation. 5. Aggrieved, both parties, filed Cross appeals being First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and the present matter was tagged along with various other similar petitions. The High Court by order dated, 07.10.2010, while remanding the matter back to the Reference Court on the issue of limitation, kept the matter pending before the High Court in the following manner- On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Record and proceedings along with the copy of Section 12(2) notices, which were sought to be produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders before this Court at the time of the arguments that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to refer the issue of limitation to the reference Court from whose judgments, the appeals are preferred by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the reference Court has omitted and failed to frame and try the issue of limitation, which essentially ought to have been decided before deciding the reference applications on merit. Hence, by keeping all these first appeals pending in High Court, the issue of limitation is referred to the reference Court for trial after granting an opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings on the issue of limitation and also to tender evidence on the said issue. The reference Court is directed to try the issue of limitation in all these cases within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the reference Court and shall return the record to this Court and shall return the record to this Court together with its findings on the issue of limitation along with the reasons therefor. 6. On remand, the reference Court granted opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and upon hearing the parties, it passed judgment and order dated 11.10.2011. The reference court, found that the predecessor interest had filed the reference for enhancement, before the expiry of the limitation as they became aware of the contents of the award only on 03.02.1988 and not when a notice informing the award was sent. 7. The High court resumed hearing of the case, after receiving the order of the Reference Court on remand. The High Court again dealt with the contention concerning the issue of limitation and concluded, by order dated 14.07.2014, that the Appellants herein, had not filed the reference for enhancement of compensation within the time limitation, in the following manner- 10. The next submission made by Mr. K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, is that the details about the Award in order to raise a challenge or grounds to be taken in the reference Application, could be available only after obtaining certified copy of the Award and a mere visit to the office of the Land Acquisition officer for receipt of compensation on 28th December, 1987 cannot be taken to mean that the claimants were posted with the details of the Award in order to raise a challenge. It is an admitted fact that all the claimants received compensation on 28th December, 1987 and, therefore, constructively and practically, they must be posted with the knowledge about the contents and details of the award. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the Appellant is in appeal before this Court. 9. The main contention canvassed by the Appellants, in these Civil Appeals, is whether an effective notice of the award was provided to the Appellant herein, as per the mandate of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, relies on the judgment of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 250 , wherein this Court has observed as under- 20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the conclusion recorded by the Reference Court, which has been approved by the High Court that the application filed by the Appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable. 21. A careful reading of the averments contained in Para 2 of the application filed by the Appellant Under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the Collector Under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22-2-1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8-4-1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of the award had not been sent to the Appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference. 22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award was sent to the Appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious error by approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice issued by the Collector Under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise of right vested in the Appellant to seek reference Under Section 18(1). (emphasis supplied) 11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government, has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the present case as the notice dated 4.12.1987, was not accompanied with the award. In this case, there could not have been a valid notice of the award, by letter dated 4.12.1987, Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, until the Appellant received a certified copy of the award, which he did on 03.02.1988. Therefore, the reference for enhancement was, accordingly, not barred by limitation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the present case as the notice dated 4.12.1987, was not accompanied with the award. In this case, there could not have been a valid notice of the award, by letter dated 4.12.1987,n (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, until thereceived a certified copy of the award, which he did on 03.02.1988. Therefore, the reference for enhancement was, accordingly, not barred by limitation.