9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce under Section 18. The Collector declined to make a reference on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. and the petitioners have come before us for a writ to compel the Collector to make the reference, and the question that we have to consider on this petition is whether the application of the petitioners is barred by limitation. 2. Now, turning to the Act, a notification under Section 4 can be issued when it appears to the State Government that land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Then Section 6 provides for a declaration when the Government is satisfied that a particular land is needed for a public purpose. Section 9 then provides for a public notice to be given by the Collector to the effect that Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him, and it was pursuant to this notice that the petitioners filed their claim claiming ₹ 28,00,000. Section 11 provides for the inquiry which the Collector has to make prior to the making of the award, and it is not disputed that this inquiry is an administrative inquiry and it is not incumbent upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddress are in the Collector's office, it seems difficult to understand why investigation should be made into other materials and other records when the Collector's office knows exactly the name of the claimant and his address as appears from the claim made by him. 3. Then we come to Section 18 and that section provides : "(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it Is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." Therefore, the right to apply to make a reference is vested in a person who is interested, and the petitioners are persons interested, as they are the trustees of this land. It is also necessary that before a person can apply he must not have accepted the award. It is well settled that the award made by the Collector in land acquisition proceedings, although it is termed an award and seems to suggest an adjudication binding between the parties, is only an offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... award expired first, the receipt of the notice by the petitioners subsequently is irrelevant. 5. The contention of Mr. Bhat for the petitioners is that an award being an offer, no question of the petitioners not having accepted that offer can possibly arise till the offer is communicated to them. Mr. Bhat says that the Legislature contemplated two modes of communicating the offer. One mode was when the claimant was himself present before the Collector at the time when the award was made, in which case he would know, being present, as to what the offer was, and having known it it was open to him to accept it or not to accept it, but the Legislature fixed the period of limitation within six weeks, if he wanted to reject that offer and make an application for a reference. The other mode of communicating the offer was by giving a notice and therefore the Legislature was at pains to provide in Section 12(2) that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhat, it is only when an offer is communicated to the claimant in one of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be construed technically. and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Legislature clearly intended that an application should be barred after the lapse of a particular time, the Court must give effect to that provision of the law, however unmeritorious the defence to the claim may be and however well deserved the claim may be. There can be no doubt that the Legislature in the proviso to Section 18 provided for all cases of applications being made to the Collector for a reference. We must assume -- and that is the only assumption that is possible -- that in Clause (a) and Clause (b) of the proviso the Legislature has exhausted all cases in which an application can be made for a reference. Clause (a) as already pointed out deals with the case where the claimant was present or represented before the Collector, and Clause (b) is the residuary clause which deals with all other cases, and the main fallacy underlying Mr. Bhat's contention is that there is a case left out by the Legislature and that case is where a notice is not received within six months from the date of the Collector's award. Unless there are very strong reasons to indicate that the Legislature has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice by the Collector and the receipt of it by the claimant would be to accelerate the period of limitation. If the Collector gave no notice, the claimant would have six months' time from the date of the award to make his application for a reference. If the Collector gave immediate notice and the notice was received by the claimant, he had only six weeks' time to make an application for a reference. The only right which is suggested on the failure to give notice by the Collector under Section 12(2) is the right to postpone the period of limitation fixed by the Act. It is contended that notice is essential to complete the cause of action of the claimant, and till the notice is given, there is no cause of action. Here again, the petitioners are confronted with a difficulty. The mere fact of the Collector giving the notice does not help the petitioners to put forward the case which they have done in this petition, because a notice may be given by the Collector and it may not be received by the claimant. Therefore, the petitioners have got to go further and contend that in order to complete the cause of action it is not merely necessary that the Collector shall give notice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant keeping himself in touch with the Collector's office and trying to find out what is happening to his claim which he has preferred in these acquisition proceedings. 10. The only case to which reference was made is a decision of Mr. Justice Chandavarkar in --'In re Land Acquisition Act 7 Bom LB 697 (A)'. On the facts of that case the judgment of the learned Judge is not of much assistance, but passages have been relied upon both by Mr. Bhat and by the Advocate General. Now, the dates are rather material. The award was made on 19-9-1904, and notice under Section 12(2) was received by the claimant on 24-9-1904, and the application for a reference was made on 9-11-1904, i.e. after six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice from the Collector. The Collector refused to make a reference and the claimant came to Court, and what was contended by the claimant was that inasmuch as an immediate notice was not given as required by Section 12(2), the period of limitation was not six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice, but six months from the date of the award. The simple answer to that contention was as was given by the learned Judge that under Section 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question) prescribes one of two periods of limitation for a party who has not accepted the Collector's award --either six weeks from the date of the receipt of the Collector's notice, whether immediate or not, or six months from the date of the award: 'whichever period shall first expire' These last words, which I have italicized, show that the element of notice is an essential ingredient, so to say, of the two alternative periods, and such notice may be 'immediate' or not." With respect to the learned Judge it is difficult to understand how the element of notice is an essential ingredient as far as the second part of Clause (b) is concerned. The element of notice is only an essential ingredient of the first part because the period of limitation runs from the receipt of the notice. As far as the second part is concerned, limitation runs from the date of the award and the date of the award has nothing whatever to do with the notice which the collector has to give under Section 12(2). 11. We do feel in this case that there is a considerable prejudice and hardship caused to the petitioners. A claim of ₹ 28,00,000 has not been adjudicated upon by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
