TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 2140-44 of 2009, wherein the High Court has upheld the judgment of the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ) on the ground of limitation. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. The land of the appellants stood notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in 1994-95. Award in respect of the said land was also made on 14.12.1995. B. Appellants did not file applications under Section 18 of the Act rather some other interested persons whose land was also covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act filed references and one such reference, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Bhagwan Das Ors. v. State of U.P. Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1532; and Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1624. 4. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has opposed the appeal contending that personal inconvenience or hardship of an individual cannot be a consideration for interpreting statutory provisions in case the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. It is to be given only strict literal interpretation. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity so far as the statutory provisions are concerned. Therefore, limitation is to be taken as prescribed under the statute. In support of her case Ms. Madhavi Divan has placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinafter called the Act 1963 ) inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act. 8. Section 28A of the Act reads as under: 28-A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court.-(1) Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ors. v. Mangatu Ram Ors. (supra); and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. Ors. (supra), dealt with the issue involved herein and held that as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a quasi judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the Act 1963 would not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Act, has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28A of the Act. The said provisions require that an application for redetermination is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court. The proviso further provides that the period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award is made and the time requisite for obtaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that clause (a) of the proviso was not applicable in the said case because the person making the application was not present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. The Court also held that notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part of clause (b) of the proviso would not be applicable. The Court, therefore, referred to the second part of the proviso which provides that such application can be made within six months from the date of the Collector s award. In the context of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the award by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of market price by the State for purchase of the property. Hence, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants in support of its case. More so, the said judgments have been delivered by this Court while dealing with the applications under Section 18 of the Act. If there are directly applicable precedents on the issue, the same have to be followed rather than to search for a new interpretation unless it is established that the earlier judgments require reconsideration. The suggestion of reconsideration has specifically been rejected by this Court in Marri Venkaiah (supra). 13. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
