1997 (4) TMI 511 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies timing for land acquisition reference applications under Section 18

The Land Acquisition Officer Versus Shivabai & Ors.

The Land Acquisition Officer Versus Shivabai & Ors. - 1997 AIR 2642, 1997 (3) SCR 647, 1997 (9) SCC 710, 1997 (5) JT 123, 1997 (3) SCALE 751 Issues:1. Validity of the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 regarding the timeline for making a reference application.3. Effect of receiving compensation without protest on the right to seek a reference.4. Jurisdiction of the reference court and the legality of the award.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal arising from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding a land acquisition matter. The case involved the acquisition of land for the Sriram Sagar Project. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1965, and possession was taken in the same year. The compensation awarded was challenged through a writ petition, leading to a reference being made for enhanced compensation.The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the reference application was made within the prescribed timeline under Section 18 of the Act. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 outlines the time limits for making a reference application, depending on whether the claimant was present at the time of the award. If the compensation is received without protest, the claimant may not be entitled to seek a reference under Section 18.The Court considered the argument that the limitation for making a reference does not start until there is proof of service of the notice of the award under Section 12(2). However, the Court held that if the parties were present when the award was made, the notice under Section 12(2) was not necessary. In this case, as the compensation was received without protest, the claimants were not entitled to seek a reference under Section 18.Furthermore, the Court emphasized that only claimants who receive compensation under protest and make an application under Section 18(1) are entitled to seek a reference. Third parties impleaded in the reference have no right to claim higher compensation by bypassing the proper process. The Court found that the reference itself was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, rendering the award of the reference court illegal.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and award of the reference court and the High Court. The Court highlighted the importance of following the legal procedures outlined in the Land Acquisition Act and upheld the principles governing the right to seek a reference for enhanced compensation.