TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the expression "date of the award" in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 means the date on which the award is pronounced or the date on which the affected person acquires notice or knowledge of it. (ii) Whether an application under Section 28A must be accompanied by a certified copy of the award, and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to such an application.
Issue (i): Whether the expression "date of the award" in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 means the date on which the award is pronounced or the date on which the affected person acquires notice or knowledge of it.
Analysis: Section 28A was treated as a remedial provision intended to extend the benefit of a higher award to persons who had not sought a reference under Section 18. The expression "date of the award" was construed in the light of the settled principle that limitation should not run against a person who had neither notice nor actual or constructive knowledge of the award. The Court applied a liberal interpretation consistent with fair play and natural justice and held that the relevant date is the date of communication of the award or the date on which the party acquires actual or constructive knowledge of it.
Conclusion: The expression "date of the award" in Section 28A means the date of communication or the date of actual or constructive knowledge, not merely the date of pronouncement.
Issue (ii): Whether an application under Section 28A must be accompanied by a certified copy of the award, and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to such an application.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 28A was read as permitting exclusion of the time taken to obtain a copy, but not as making a certified copy an indispensable condition for filing. An application filed within the prescribed period was held to be valid even if not accompanied by the copy, though production of the copy may facilitate expeditious disposal. On limitation, the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to courts in the strict sense and not to executive authorities such as the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Conclusion: A certified copy is not mandatory for a valid Section 28A application, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the petitioners' applications on limitation and on the ground of non-filing of a certified copy was unsustainable, and the applications were required to be considered on merits in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: For a remedial limitation provision, the relevant date is the date of communication or actual or constructive knowledge of the award, and a certified copy is not a mandatory precondition unless the statute expressly so provides.
TaxTMI 
