Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Govindrao Deulkar, was the owner of two plots acquired for the Bembla Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was passed on 10.5.2004, and the petitioner claimed to have received notice under Section 12(2) on 2.8.2004. He filed a reference under Section 18 on 7.8.2004, seeking higher compensation. The respondents opposed, contending the reference was barred by limitation. The Reference Court framed an issue on limitation and, after trial, held that the petitioner admitted in cross-examination that he received the notice on 21.6.2004, making the reference filed on 7.8.2004 beyond the six-week period. Consequently, the reference was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioner challenged this order in civil revision. The High Court observed that the Reference Court had not properly considered the petitioner's explanation that the admission was a mistake and that he had consistently pleaded receipt on 2.8.2004. The court noted that the Reference Court should have examined the evidence more carefully, including the testimony of the petitioner's witness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The court emphasized that the limitation period under Section 18 starts from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2), and the court must determine the actual date based on evidence.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The period of limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 is six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The Reference Court must determine the actual date of receipt based on evidence, and an admission in cross-examination can override the initial pleading. In this case, the claimant admitted receiving notice on 21.6.2004, but the reference was filed on 7.8.2004, which is beyond six weeks. However, the High Court found that the Reference Court failed to consider the claimant's explanation that he received notice on 2.8.2004 and that the admission was made inadvertently. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was barred by limitation when the claimant admitted in cross-examination that he received notice under Section 12(2) on 21.6.2004, but filed reference on 7.8.2004, beyond six weeks.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2016, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation. The Reference Court was directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to explain the discrepancy in the date of receipt of notice and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Limitation period for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- starts from date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2)
- not from date of award
- Reference Court must consider evidence of receipt date
- Cross-examination admission can override initial pleading.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 173
Civil Revision Application No. 84 of 2016
Dr. (Smt.) Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Shri Shrikant Saoji for appellant; Shri M. A. Kadu for respondent no.1 & 2; Shri S. G. Jagtap for respondent no.3
Shankar s/o Govindrao Deulkar
The State of Maharashtra, Land Acquisition Officer, Executive Engineer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against dismissal of reference petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as barred by limitation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment and order dated 2.5.2016 of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati dismissing his reference petition as time-barred, and to restore the reference for adjudication on merits.
Filing Reason
The Reference Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for higher compensation on the ground that the reference was filed beyond the limitation period of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Previous Decisions
The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2016, dismissed the reference petition as barred by limitation.
Issues
Whether the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was barred by limitation when the claimant admitted in cross-examination that he received notice under Section 12(2) on 21.6.2004, but filed reference on 7.8.2004, beyond six weeks.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he received notice under Section 12(2) on 2.8.2004 and filed reference on 7.8.2004, within limitation. The admission in cross-examination that he received notice on 21.6.2004 was a mistake.
Respondents contended that the petitioner's admission in cross-examination proved receipt on 21.6.2004, making the reference filed on 7.8.2004 beyond six weeks and thus barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The limitation period for filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, starts from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The Reference Court must determine the actual date of receipt based on evidence, and an admission in cross-examination can be explained. If the court fails to consider the claimant's explanation and the evidence properly, the order dismissing the reference as time-barred is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant is the original claimant, whose claim petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati vide judgment and order 2.5.2016 on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
As per the petitioner, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received by him on 2.8.2004.
In the light of this evidence, the Reference Court was pleased to hold that as petitioner himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he has received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.6.2004, whereas reference was filed on 7.8.2004, therefore it was beyond the period of six weeks and hence, it was barred by limitation.
Procedural History
The petitioner's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was passed on 10.5.2004. The petitioner claimed to have received notice under Section 12(2) on 2.8.2004 and filed a reference under Section 18 on 7.8.2004. The Reference Court (Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati) dismissed the reference as time-barred on 2.5.2016. The petitioner filed a civil revision application in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 17.7.2017, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 9, Section 12(2), Section 18
