TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses petition under Land Acquisition Act, citing limitation period from award date</h1> <h3>Jehangir Bomanji and Ors. Versus C.D. Gaikwad</h3> The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the application for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Collector's award under the Land Acquisition Act.2. Application of limitation period for filing a reference under Section 18.3. Requirement and impact of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.4. Rights of the petitioners as trustees and claimants.5. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 18.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Collector's Award:The petitioners, trustees of a deed of trust, owned land in Goregaon. The Government issued notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, and the petitioners filed a claim for Rs. 28,00,000 in November 1949. The Collector made an award on 28-12-1951, awarding Rs. 28,128-3-0 to the petitioners. The petitioners applied for a reference under Section 18, which the Collector declined, citing the application was barred by limitation.2. Application of Limitation Period for Filing a Reference:Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act allows any interested person who has not accepted the award to require a reference by the Collector for the court's determination. The proviso to Section 18 specifies:- Clause (a): If the person was present or represented before the Collector, the application must be made within six weeks from the date of the award.- Clause (b): In other cases, within six weeks of receiving the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period expires first.The petitioners' case fell under Clause (b) as they were not present during the award. The Collector argued that since the application was made after six months from the award date, it was barred by limitation.3. Requirement and Impact of Notice Under Section 12(2):Section 12(2) mandates the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to persons not present when the award is made. In this case, the notice was not served to the petitioners but to a person named Rustomji Pestonji. The petitioners received the notice only in April 1953, well after the award date. The petitioners argued that limitation should not run until the offer (award) is communicated to them. They claimed that the failure to serve notice timely should not result in losing their right to a reference.4. Rights of the Petitioners as Trustees and Claimants:The petitioners, as trustees, had the right to apply for a reference under Section 18. They argued that their right to make an application could not arise until the offer (award) was communicated. They contended that the Collector's failure to serve notice should not bar their right to seek a reference.5. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 18:The court emphasized that the law of limitation is technical and must be construed strictly. The proviso to Section 18 was interpreted to cover all cases, including those where notice was not received within six months from the award date. The court held that limitation begins to run from the date of the award, irrespective of whether the claimant received notice. The court noted that the award is filed in the Collector's office and is open to inspection, implying that claimants should be vigilant.The court referenced a decision by Justice Chandavarkar, which supported the view that the period of limitation runs from the date of the award or the receipt of notice, whichever expires first. The court concluded that the petitioners' application was barred by limitation as it was made after six months from the award date.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed with costs, as the court held that the application for a reference was barred by limitation. The court acknowledged the hardship caused to the petitioners but emphasized that limitation laws must be applied strictly, and any argument of hardship is more appropriate for legislative consideration than judicial determination.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
