VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
[2018] 7 S.C.R. 1105, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6003-6004 of 2018)
JULY 04, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –  s.12(2) – Effective notice of
the award – Land acquisition – Passing of the award – Copy of
award not sent to land owner along with the notice dated 04.12.1987
of the award – Land owner received certified copy of the award on
03.02.1988 – Thereafter, on 09.02.1988 the land owner filed
reference against award for enhancement of compensation – Issue
raised as to limitation – Reference Court held the Reference to be
within limitation – However, High Court held the Reference to be
barred by limitation – On appeal, held: There could not have been
a valid notice of the award, by letter dated 04.12.1987, u/s. 12(2),
until the land owner received a certified copy of the award, which
he did on 03.02.1988 – Thus, the reference for enhancement filed
on 09.02.1988 not barred by limitation – Order of the High Court
concerning the point of limitation set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The notice dated 04.12.1987, was not accompanied
with the award. In the instant case, there could not have been a
valid notice of the award, by letter dated 04.12.1987, 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. The order of the High Court
concerning the point of limitation is set aside and the matters are
remanded back for fresh consideration on merits of the case
inter alia, as to the quantum of compensation. [Para 11, 12]
[1110-E, F]
Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [2012] 3 SCR
1042 : (2012) 5 SCC 250 – relied on.
  [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1105
    1105
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 3 SCR 1042
     relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 6003-
6004 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal Nos.116
and 31 of 1996
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 6006-6007 of 2018.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,  Siddhesh Kotwal,  Raghunatha Sethupathy,
Gagan Narang, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar,  R.S.Hegde, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Chandra
Prakash, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
Civil Appeal Nos.6003-6004/2018
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27516-27517/2014)
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
dated 14.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
(Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal
No. 31 of 1996.
3. A brief reference to facts of the case may be necessary for the
disposal of this case. The predecessor interest of the appellant herein
was the owner of the property in dispute. In the year 1985, the disputed
land, was proposed to be acquired by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC
Corporation, Amravati for construction of city service terminus at
Amravati. Required Notification under Section 126 (4) of the MRTP
Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published
in the Government Gazette dated
05.12.1985. Thereafter the objections
from the interested parties were heard by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Zilla Parishad Works, Amravati. By a final order dated 30.11.1987,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award, wherein an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
amount of Rs. 5,83,366/- was payable by the respondent authorities to
the appellant herein. On 21.12.1987, the predecessor interest of the
appellant received a notice from the collector/Land Acquisition Officer
informing them about the award being passed on 30.11.1987, which is
reproduced as under-
You are hereby given notice that you are being treated as
person interested in the above-mentioned case. In the said case
on 30.11.1987, I, have pronounced the following Award under
sub-section 1 of Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
(1) The area of the land is 704.31 sq. meters in plot No. 3.
(2) The amount of Rs. 2,58,849.00 as compensation be given for
the land.
(3) The amount of compensation has been divided as follows:-
       …..
       …..
(2) The amount payable to you is Rs.2,58,849.00. You personally
or through authorized representative should remain present before
me on 28.12.1987. You can receive the compensation under protest
so that there is no impediment in your right to send reference to
the Civil Court in respect of this case.
It may be noted that the actual award was not enclosed with the
aforesaid notice and the predecessor interest of the appellant received
the certified copy of the award only on 03.02.1988. On 09.02.1988, the
predecessor interest of the appellant, aggrieved by the compensation
awarded to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference
against the award for enhancement of compensation under Section 18
of the Land
Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the predecessor interest
of the appellant, had received the award amount under protest, that the
reference for enhancement was pending.
4. The Reference Court (Court of Civil Judge), after hearing the
parties concerned, partly allowed the reference and increased the
compensation from Rs. 110/- per square meter to Rs. 210/- per square
meter. It may not be out of context to note that respondent authority had
not raised any issue on limitation.
VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
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.
VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
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.
12. Having regards to
the facts and circumstances of this case,
we set aside the order of the High Court concerning the point of limitation
and remand the matters back for fresh consideration on merits of the
case inter alia, as to the quantum of compensation. Taking into
consideration, the long pendency, we request the High Court to dispose
of the matter expeditiously.
13. The appeals are disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6006-6007 of 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 16339-16340/2018)
(arising out of SLP (C) No............... CC No. 17187 of 2014)
14. Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
15. Application for deletion of respondent no. 3 in Special Leave
Petition arising out of First Appeal No. 35 of 1996 is allowed.
16. Leave granted.
17. As these appeals are filed against the same impugned judgment
and order dt. 14.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and having the same question of law, these
appeals are also disposed of in a sequel to the discussion set
out above.
Nidhi Jain
                                         Appeals disposed of.
VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADE v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA THR. THE COLLECTOR [N. V. RAMANA, J.]