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

3. A brief reference to facts of the case may be necessary for the disposal of this case. The predecessor interest of theherein 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 NotificationSection 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 amount of Rs. 5,83,366/- was payable by theauthorities to theherein. On 21.12.1987, the predecessor interest of thereceived a notice from the collector/Land Acquisition Officer informing them about the award being passed on 30.11.1987, which is reproduced as under-It may be noted that the actual award was not enclosed with the aforesaid notice and the predecessor interest of thereceived the certified copy of the award only on 03.02.1988. On 09.02.1988, the predecessor interest of theaggrieved by the compensation awarded to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference against the award for enhancement of compensationYou 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 Awardn 1 of Section 11 of the 1894 Act.area of the land is 704.31 sq. meters in plot No. 3.amount of Rs. 2,58,849.00 as compensation be given for the land.amount of compensation has been divided asYou 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.Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the predecessor interest of thehad received the award amount under protest, that the reference for enhancement was pending.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 thatauthority had not raised any issue on limitation.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 learnedparties 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.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.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 theherein, 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 28Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, theis in appeal before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.