1991 (9) TMI 366 - HC - Indian Laws

Court clarifies date of award determination under Land Acquisition Act; criticizes rejection of applications without certified copy.

Sukhdeo and Ors. Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

The court emphasized the importance of the party's knowledge of the award in determining the date of the award under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition ... - Issues:Interpretation of the date of the award under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Validity of applications under Section 28A without a certified copy of the court's award.Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to applications before quasi-judicial bodies.Correctness of rejecting applications under Section 28A as time-barred.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the date of the award under Section 28A:The key issue in this judgment revolves around determining the date of the award under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court emphasized that the knowledge of the party affected by the award, whether actual or constructive, is crucial for fair play and natural justice. The interpretation of 'the date of the award' must consider when the award is communicated or known by the party concerned, rather than a rigid literal or mechanical approach. The court held that the date of the award is when the party receives notice or acquires knowledge of the award, either actually or constructively.2. Validity of applications under Section 28A without a certified copy:The judgment clarified that while filing an application under Section 28A, it is not mandatory to accompany it with a certified copy of the court's award. However, if an applicant chooses to submit a certified copy, the time spent obtaining it can be excluded. Filing an application without a certified copy is considered valid, and the collector has the discretion to grant time for submission. The court criticized the rejection of applications for lacking certified copies, stating it was an incorrect exercise of jurisdiction by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to quasi-judicial bodies:The judgment highlighted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies strictly to proceedings in courts and not to quasi-judicial bodies or executive authorities. The court cited legal precedents to support this position and noted that the inclusion of a proviso in Section 28A by Parliament confirms this legal understanding. The petitioners' reliance on Section 5 of the Limitation Act was deemed a mistaken legal approach.4. Correctness of rejecting applications as time-barred:The court found that the SLAO's rejection of the applications under Section 28A was based on a misconception of law. The petitioners had averred in their affidavits that they acquired knowledge of the court's award shortly before filing the applications. The court held that the SLAO's assumption of the applications being time-barred was incorrect, leading to unsustainable orders. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the SLAO to review the applications on merit and in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuances of interpreting the date of the award, the requirements for applications under Section 28A, the limitations of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the correct application of law in rejecting time-barred applications.