Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vithal Bhaskar Thakur, owned land bearing Survey No.198, Hissa No.9, which was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the New Bombay Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer published the award on 31st July 1998 in the petitioner's absence. A notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was sent to the petitioner but was served on Himabai, the wife of the petitioner's brother (sister-in-law), on 21st December 1998. On 18th February 1999, the petitioner applied under Section 18 of the Act for a reference to court for enhancement of compensation. The respondent no.1 rejected the application on 13th July 1999 on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as the notice was served on 21st December 1998 and the application was made beyond six weeks from that date. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 18(3) of the Act (as applicable in Maharashtra) read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined whether the service of notice on the sister-in-law constituted valid service under Section 12(2). The court noted that Section 12(2) requires notice to be served on the person interested or his agent, and if the person is not present, the notice may be served on a male member of his family. Since the notice was served on a female member (sister-in-law), it was not valid service. Consequently, the limitation for making an application under Section 18 would run from the date of knowledge of the award. The petitioner's application was made within six months from the date of knowledge (the award was published on 31st July 1998 and the application was made on 18th February 1999). The court held that the application was within limitation and set aside the Collector's order, directing the respondent no.1 to make a reference under Section 18 within three months.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Notice under Section 12(2) - Valid Service - Service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the wife of the brother of the petitioner (sister-in-law) is not valid service as it was not served on the person concerned or a male member of his family - The Collector's order rejecting reference on ground of limitation was set aside (Paras 4-6). B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Limitation - When notice under Section 12(2) is not validly served, the limitation for making an application under Section 18 runs from the date of knowledge of the award - The petitioner's application made within six months from the date of knowledge was within limitation (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the wife of the brother of the petitioner (sister-in-law) constitutes valid service, and whether the application for reference under Section 18 was within limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order dated 13th July 1999 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and directed the respondent no.1 to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Section 12(2) notice must be served on the person concerned or a male member of his family
- service on a female member not being a male member is invalid
- limitation for reference under Section 18 runs from date of knowledge of award when notice is not properly served
