Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Shankar D. Nadkarni, owned land in Survey No.32/7, Cotarlim, Sanguem, Goa, which was acquired in 1993 for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) classified the land as bharad (non-irrigated) and awarded compensation at ₹25 per sq. mtr. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for higher compensation. The Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.3/2015 rejected the reference on the ground of limitation, holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed period from the date of the award. Additionally, the Reference Court considered the merits and reduced the compensation to ₹7 per sq. mtr., finding that the appellant failed to prove entitlement to a higher rate. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court examined two main issues: whether the Reference Court could suo motu decide limitation without giving the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence on the date of knowledge, and whether the compensation was adequate. The court held that while the Reference Court can examine limitation even if not raised by parties, it must determine the date of knowledge of the award as per the principle in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer. Since the appellant was not given an opportunity to lead evidence on this point, the limitation finding was unsustainable. On merits, the court noted that the LAO had classified the land as bharad and offered ₹25 per sq. mtr., but the Reference Court reduced it without proper evidence. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration on both limitation and compensation, allowing the appellant to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18(2)(b) proviso - Date of Knowledge - The Reference Court erred in rejecting the reference as barred by limitation without considering the date of knowledge of the award, as per Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500. The court must determine when the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of the award. (Paras 3, 7-10) B) Land Acquisition - Suo Motu Consideration of Limitation - Section 18 - The Reference Court can examine limitation even if not raised by parties, as per Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404. However, the court must give the claimant an opportunity to lead evidence on the date of knowledge. (Paras 5, 11) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Bharad Land - The LAO had classified the land as bharad and offered ₹25 per sq. mtr., but the Reference Court reduced it to ₹7 per sq. mtr. without proper evidence. The matter requires reconsideration on merits. (Paras 4, 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference on limitation grounds suo motu and whether the compensation of ₹7 per sq. mtr. was adequate.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.06.2016, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation and compensation, with opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Limitation for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- date of knowledge of award
- suo motu consideration of limitation
- compensation for bharad land
- escalation of compensation
