Case Note & Summary
This civil appeal by special leave concerned the limitation period for an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents, two evacuee women, owned 55 bighas and 7 biswas of land in villages Salarpur and Nasirpur, district Gurgaon. The State of Punjab acquired their land for a field firing and bombing range. The Collector made an award on October 25, 1953, fixing compensation at Rs. 96 per acre. The respondents were not notified about the acquisition and were not present at the award; no notice under Section 12(2) was issued to them. On December 24, 1954, more than a year later, they applied to the Collector for interim payment referring to the acquisition and a Lahore High Court judgment of 1944 establishing their ownership. They stated that compensation was not apportioned and prayed for payment for a daughter's marriage, without prejudice to enhancement. Compensation was paid on July 22, 1955. On September 30, 1955, the respondents applied under Section 18 for a reference, claiming they came to know of the award only on July 22, 1955 when they received the compensation, and that market value was about Rs. 600 per acre. The Collector accepted the application and referred the matter to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon. The Senior Subordinate Judge discharged the reference on December 17, 1957, holding it was barred by limitation, taking December 24, 1954 as the date of knowledge. The Punjab High Court in revision set aside that order, holding that the civil court could not go into the question of limitation based on Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu, and directed the reference to be dealt with on merits. The State appealed by special leave. The Supreme Court considered two main questions: whether the civil court could examine limitation and, assuming it could, whether the reference application was within time under the proviso to Section 18. The Court noted that clause (a) and the first part of clause (b) of the proviso were inapplicable because the respondents were not present and received no notice under Section 12(2). Relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, the Court held that the second part of clause (b) required knowledge of the award, meaning knowledge of its essential contents, not merely that an award had been made. The earlier petition of December 24, 1954 did not show such knowledge because it did not reveal the amount of compensation per acre. The Court concluded that the respondents had knowledge of the essential contents only on July 22, 1955 when compensation was paid; therefore the six-month period commenced that day and the application on September 30, 1955 was within time. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's direction to deal with the reference on merits.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Applicability of limitation clauses under proviso to Section 18 where no notice under Section 12(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 12(2), 18 proviso - Respondents were not present at award and received no notice under Section 12(2), so clause (a) and first part of clause (b) of proviso did not apply; limitation under second part of clause (b) runs from date of knowledge of award. Held that six months began on July 22, 1955 when compensation amount received, making reference application within time (Paras Not mentioned). B) Limitation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Meaning of "knowledge of the award" under proviso to Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 proviso - Knowledge must be of essential contents of award, not mere fact that award made; earlier application for interim payment on December 24, 1954 did not show knowledge of essential contents because amount per acre not known; communication under Section 12(2) would have fixed knowledge but was absent. Held that knowledge arose on July 22, 1955 when respondents received compensation and learned essential contents (Paras Not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Land Acquisition Reference - Jurisdiction of civil court to question limitation on reference under Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - There was conflict of judicial opinion; Punjab High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. State of Pepsu held civil court cannot decide limitation; Supreme Court did not resolve but assumed civil court could consider limitation and found reference not barred. Held that even assuming jurisdiction, reference was competent and within time (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation where no notice under Section 12(2) was given and the applicants were not present at the award; what constitutes knowledge of the award for starting limitation under the proviso to Section 18; whether the civil court to which a reference is made can reject the reference on the ground of limitation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; the application for reference under Section 18 was held within time; the High Court's direction to the Senior Subordinate Judge to deal with the reference on merits was upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation under proviso to Section 18 Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 runs from date of knowledge of essential contents of award
- not mere fact of award
- absence of notice under Section 12(2) and non-presence at award exclude clause (a) and first part of clause (b) of proviso
- second part of clause (b) six-month period starts from actual or constructive knowledge of essential contents
- earlier application for interim payment without knowledge of compensation amount does not constitute knowledge of award
- civil court could assume jurisdiction to examine limitation but reference held within time.
