The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.633 OF 2019 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. BALAJI S/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SRIRANGANATHA NILAYA 7TH CROSS, SREE CHANNABASAVESHWARA LAYOUT UPPARAHALLI TUMAKURU 2. SRI. VEERABHADHRAIAH S/O. LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SOGENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 3. SRI. S.N. BYRAPPA S/O. LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SOGENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE) - AND: 2 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI - 572 132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.S. ARUN, AGA) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER TO TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. L.A.C.NO.1/2014 MADHUGIRI JMFC, IN THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR FOR JUDGMENT ON PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: AND COMING ON 05.06.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This MFA is filed by the petitioners/appellants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2018 passed in LAC No.1/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri ('Reference Court' for short). - 3
Legal Reasoning
thereafter, that is, in November 2014, we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the - 11 appellants that the date of issuance and the receipt of the notice under Section 12 of the LA Act are to be proved before the Reference Court is completely fallacious and unsustainable. 12. Having admitted before the Reference Court that the award amount had been received on 03.07.2013, and having filed an application for condonation of delay, the land losers had admitted that their application under Section 18 of the LA Act was belated. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in rejecting the application which was filed beyond time and could not have been entertained by the Reference Court. The appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*
Arguments
2. We have heard Shri. G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. G.S.Arun, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. Appellants No.1, 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of property bearing Sy.No.11/1 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas situated at Pujarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk. The said land was acquired by respondent by awarding a compensation of Rs.1,71,743/-. 4. The appellants, not being aware of the legal remedies available to them to seek enhancement of compensation did not obtain any legal assistance nor did they approach any authorities for seeking enhancement. However, the award amount was received on 03.07.2013, after which they approached the competent Court by filing an application under Section 18 of the LA Act and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 ('Limitation Act' for short) for condoning the delay of 107 days in filing the above application. - 4 5. The Reference Court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had failed to make an application within 90 days from the date of service of notice of Award and no reasons were made out in the interim application to prove that the delay caused was unintentional. It was held that before receiving the amount on 03.07.2013, the petitioners were duly served with three notices, which were also acknowledged by them. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Reference Court has allowed the respondent to cross-examine the witness, PW.1 even when the respondent has not filed any objections to the application filed, seeking condonation of delay. It is further contended that since there was no objection raised nor any material produced to show that the notices under Section 12 of the LA Act had been served on the appellants/petitioners, the Reference Court erred in rejecting the application. It is contended that the appellants are illiterate land losers and that the order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court to consider whether the - 5 notices under Section 12 of the LA Act had actually been served on the appellants and whether the application is actually belated. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the language of Section 18(2) of the LA Act is perfectly clear. The Reference Court could not have entertained an application which was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the award or the date on which the land loser was informed about the passing of the award, whichever is later. It is submitted that in the instant case, the land losers admitted case was that the award amount was received on 03.07.2013 and that the application under Section 18 of the LA Act was preferred belatedly after 107 days from the expiry of the period of 90 days. It is submitted that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act per se was not maintainable in the light of the provisions of Section 18(2) of the LA Act. After admitting that the application was belated, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the respondent had not raised the question of limitation. - 6 8. We have considered the contentions advanced. Section 18 of the LA Act as amended and applicable in Karnataka specifically provides as follows: "18. Reference to Court.-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award [or amendment thereof] may, by written application to the [Deputy Commissioner], require that the matter be referred by the [Deputy Commissioner] for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award [or the amendment] is taken: [Provided that every such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of service of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 12.] [(3)(a) The Deputy Commissioner shall within ninety days from the date of receipt of an application under sub- section (1) make a reference to the Court. (b) If the Deputy Commissioner does not make a reference to the Court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference, and the Court may direct the Deputy - 7 Commissioner to make the reference within such time as the Court may fix.]" 9. It is therefore clear that an application under Section 18 of the LA Act for a reference has to be made within a period of 90 days from the date of the award or from the date of receipt of notice of the award. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioners themselves had pleaded that three notices had been issued to them. It was also the specific pleading in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred before the Reference Court that the award amount was paid on 03.07.2013 and that the application under Section 18 of the LA Act is being filed belatedly. 10. The Apex Court has clearly held that the time limit provided under Section 18(2) of the LA Act is mandatory in nature and no application can be preferred beyond the period as provided in the Statute. (i) In the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 414, the Apex Court - 8 has clearly held that, if the application for reference is not made within time, the Collector will not have the power to make the reference. Further, if the reference is wrongly made by the Collector, the Court will have to determine the validity of the reference. (ii) In the case of Bhagwan Das and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that in paragraph No.31, which reads as follows:- "31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchanama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so." - 9 (iii) In the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal and others v. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acqusition Officer and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1707, the Apex Court has held that in paragraph No.17, which reads as follows:- "17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal (supra) and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitation for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning the delay in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ Petition No.1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In the aforesaid two decisions before this Court, there were no such facts. Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand." - 10 11. It is also clear from a plain reading of the provision that what is intended is that the application must be filed within 90 days from when the land loser is made aware of the fact of the award. In the instant case, admittedly, the award amount has been disbursed on 03.07.2013. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in preferring LAC No.1/2014, the claimants state that they have received the compensation under protest and are not satisfied with the compensation awarded. They state that they had requested the Land Acquisition Officer to send the records for higher compensation to the Civil Court but have not received any intimation and hence have filed the application for enhancement of compensation. Since it is an admitted fact that the appellants had clear knowledge of passing of the award on 03.07.2013 and since it is an admitted fact that there was no written application made to the Deputy Commissioner within 90 days, the LAC was filed long