Case Note & Summary
This civil revision application arises from an order dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gondia, rejecting the petitioner Deoram's application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The land acquisition award was passed on 18.7.2006. The respondents claimed that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 18.1.2007, and the reference application filed in February 2008 was therefore barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that he first came to know of the notice only on 17.9.2008 when the respondents filed a reply in Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2008. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application without adjudicating this disputed question of fact. The High Court held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring pleading and proof, and the Officer could not have rejected the application. The Court allowed the revision, quashed the order, and directed the Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court, leaving the question of limitation open for the Civil Court to decide. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Limitation - Mixed Question of Law and Fact - The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which requires pleading and proof. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the reference application as barred by limitation based on the alleged service of notice under Section 12(2) on 18.1.2007, while the petitioner claimed knowledge only on 17.9.2008. The Officer failed to adjudicate this disputed fact. Held that the Officer could not have rejected the application and must refer the matter to the Civil Court, leaving the limitation issue open for the Civil Court to decide (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer can reject an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the disputed question of fact regarding service of notice under Section 12(2).
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed and set aside. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the matter to the Civil Court by keeping open the question of limitation to be decided by the Civil Court. No costs.
Law Points
- Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring pleading and proof
- Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot reject reference application on limitation without adjudicating disputed facts
- Disputed question of service of notice under Section 12(2) must be decided by Civil Court
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 86
Civil Revision Application No.48 of 2011
Shri I.N.Choudhari for applicant, Smt. T.D.Khade, AGP for respondents
Deoram S/o Premlal Choudhari
The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Gondia; Special Land Acquisition Officer (B.& I.P.) No.3 Gondia; State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging the order of Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting application for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on ground of limitation.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 17.8.2010 and direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation.
Filing Reason
The applicant's application under Section 18 for reference to Civil Court for enhancement of compensation was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as barred by limitation.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 18.7.2006 and rejected the reference application on 17.8.2010.
Issues
Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer can reject an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the disputed question of fact regarding service of notice under Section 12(2).
Submissions/Arguments
The respondents contended that notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioner on 18.1.2007, making the reference application filed in February 2008 barred by limitation.
The petitioner contended that he first came to know of the notice on 17.9.2008 when the respondents filed a reply in Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2008.
Ratio Decidendi
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which requires pleading and proof. The Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot reject an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the disputed question of fact regarding service of notice under Section 12(2). Such disputed questions must be left for the Civil Court to decide.
Judgment Excerpts
The question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and it is required to be pleaded and proved.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer has not adjudicated upon this disputed question of fact. At any rate, this question can be gone into by the Civil Court and the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have rejected the application under Section 18, for reference.
Procedural History
The land acquisition award was passed on 18.7.2006. The applicant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation in February 2008. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application on 17.8.2010 on the ground of limitation. The applicant filed the present civil revision application challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 12(2), Section 18
