Bombay High Court Allows Revision in Land Acquisition Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Award Set Aside for Lack of Proper Notice to Interested Persons. The court held that mandatory notice under Section 12(2) must be given to persons interested not present at the award, and limitation for reference under Section 18 runs from date of knowledge.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Chandrashekhar Bhayaji Khawale and Gajanan Bhayaji Khawale, were owners of agricultural land in Khadka, Seloo, Wardha. Their land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for a minor irrigation project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30th June 2005, but the applicants claimed they had no knowledge of the award and were not present at the time it was made. They alleged that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon them. The applicants came to know about the award only on 10th October 2005 when they received a notice under Section 9 of the Act. They filed a reference application under Section 18 on 21st November 2005, which was rejected by the Reference Court as barred by limitation, holding that the award was passed on 30th June 2005 and the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks. The applicants then filed a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 12(2) and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It noted that Section 12(2) mandates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of the award to persons interested who are not present at the time of making the award. The court found that the respondents failed to prove that any such notice was given to the applicants. The court held that the requirement of Section 12(2) is mandatory and non-compliance renders the award invalid. Consequently, the limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 would start only from the date of knowledge of the award. Since the applicants came to know about the award on 10th October 2005 and filed the reference on 21st November 2005, which was within six weeks, the reference was within limitation. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Reference Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Notice of Award - Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Mandatory Notice - The court held that the requirement of giving notice of the award to persons interested who were not present at the time of making the award is mandatory. Failure to give such notice renders the award invalid and the limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 starts from the date of knowledge of the award. (Paras 5-7)

B) Land Acquisition - Reference Application - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation - The court held that when no notice under Section 12(2) is given, the limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 does not begin to run until the applicant has actual knowledge of the award. The reference application filed within 6 weeks of acquiring knowledge is within limitation. (Paras 6-7)

C) Land Acquisition - Validity of Award - Non-Compliance with Section 12(2) - The court held that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 12(2) vitiates the award. The award was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after giving proper notice to the applicants. (Paras 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the failure to give notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the applicants renders the award invalid and whether the reference application under Section 18 is within limitation when the applicants had no knowledge of the award.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order of the Reference Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants. The court held that the failure to give notice under Section 12(2) renders the award invalid and the limitation for reference under Section 18 runs from the date of knowledge.

Law Points

  • Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894 requires that notice of the award be given to persons interested who are not present at the time of making the award
  • non-compliance renders the award invalid
  • limitation for reference under Section 18 runs from the date of knowledge of the award
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 141

Civil Revision Application No.67 of 2013

2013-09-30

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Mr. A.R. Chavan for applicants, Mr. Kadu (AGP) for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. P.D. Meghe for respondent no.3

Chandrashekhar Bhayaji Khawale and Gajanan Bhayaji Khawale

The State of Maharashtra, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, and The Executive Engineer

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Application challenging the rejection of a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as barred by limitation.

Remedy Sought

The applicants sought to set aside the order of the Reference Court and to have their reference application under Section 18 heard on merits.

Filing Reason

The applicants' land was acquired, but they were not given notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Their reference application under Section 18 was rejected as time-barred.

Previous Decisions

The Reference Court rejected the reference application as barred by limitation, holding that the award was passed on 30th June 2005 and the application was filed beyond six weeks.

Issues

Whether the failure to give notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 renders the award invalid? Whether the reference application under Section 18 is within limitation when the applicants had no knowledge of the award?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicants argued that no notice under Section 12(2) was given to them, and they came to know about the award only on 10th October 2005. The reference application filed on 21st November 2005 was within six weeks from the date of knowledge. The respondents argued that the award was passed on 30th June 2005 and the reference application was filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks, hence it was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of giving notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to persons interested who are not present at the time of making the award is mandatory. Non-compliance renders the award invalid. The limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 starts from the date of knowledge of the award, not from the date of the award, when no notice under Section 12(2) is given.

Judgment Excerpts

The requirement of giving notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to persons interested who are not present at the time of making the award is mandatory. Non-compliance with Section 12(2) renders the award invalid and the limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 starts from the date of knowledge of the award.

Procedural History

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30th June 2005. The applicants filed a reference application under Section 18 on 21st November 2005. The Reference Court rejected the application as barred by limitation. The applicants then filed a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 30th September 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 12(2), Section 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision in Land Acquisition Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Award Set Aside for Lack of Proper Notice to Interested Persons. The court held that mandatory notice under Sect...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Caste Validity of Tadvi Bhil Community. Scrutiny Committee's finding that respondents belong to Scheduled Tribe 'Tadvi Bhil' is upheld under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 19...