STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LAXUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals involve questions connected with the scope and effect of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and adopted in the State of Karnataka. The brief facts leading to the appeals are as under. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2024 OF 1999 the State challenges the order of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High court in Civil Revision Petition No. 3682 of 1995 by which the learned Judge dismissed the revision filed by the State challenging the order of the Civil Judge, being the land acquisition court, purporting to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in Karnataka. The notice of the award under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the claimant on 6-1-1984. Under Section 18 (2) of the Act, the claimant had 90 days from the date of service of that notice, to seek a reference under that Section for enhancement of compensation. The' respondent claimed that an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act seeking a reference was filed on 15-3-1984, within 90 days of 6-1-1984, but the reference was not made by the Deputy Commissioner within 90 days thereafter as enjoined by Section 18 (3) (a) of the Act. The claimant approached the civil court under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act only in April 1994, more than 10 years after the receipt of the notice of the award. The claimant also purported to file an application for condoning the delay in mak. ing the application. This was in view of the fact that it had been held that an application to the court under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act had to be made within three years of the expiry of 90 days of the date of making an application seeking a reference for enhancement of compensation. The State opposed the application for condoning the delay on the ground that Section 5 of the limitation Act had no application and that, in any event, no ground was made out for condoning the long delay of ten years in filing the application. The civil judge proceeded to condone the delay and proceeded to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. In revision, the High Court refused to interfere on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act had application and there was no reason to interfere with the condoning of the delay by the civil judge. The High Court apparently without even a verification, merely accepted the evidence of PW 1 that he had made an application within 90 days of the receipt of the notice of the award under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal by special leave has been filed by the State. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4459 OF 1999 in this case, the civil Judge dismissed the application made under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act by the respondent on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. This order of the civil Judge was challenged in an appeal before the district Judge. It is not clear under what provision such an appeal was filed, since under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Karnataka no appeal is provided to the District Court from such an order of the civil Judge and an appeal is provided only against the award. The appellate court is seen to have held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable and the learned civil Judge was in error in dismissing the application for compelling the reference under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act without deciding the prayer for condonation of the delay in filing that application. This order of the District Judge was challenged in revision before the high Court. The High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act had application and declined to interfere with the order of remand made by the Additional district Judge. The High Court, thus dismissed the revision filed by the State. Aggrieved by this order, the State has come up with this appeal by special leave. CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 607-609 of 2000 in the first case it appears that the application for reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act itself was made only two years after the award. Another seven years thereafter an application for compelling a reference was made under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act. The civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was out of time. Ten years thereafter, the claimant filed a revision as C. R. P. No. 1505 of 1997 before the High Court. The High Court ignored the delay of ten years in filing the revision in a somewhat cavalier manner and allowing the revision remitted the reference application to the Land Acquisition Court for entertaining the application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act. The others were cases of a similar nature. In all of them there was considerable delay in making the application for reference and also delay in approaching the court. In these revisions also, same lack of application of mind was exhibited by the High Court and the revisions were allowed and the applications remitted. The common order thus passed, is subjected to challenge in these appeals. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5547 OF 2000 the State challenges the order of the High Court passed under the same circumstances leading to the challenge in C. A. No. 4459 of 1999. Here the application for compelling a reference was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time. The district court permitted the claimant to file an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act and directed its consideration. The High Court refused to interfere. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2001 in this appeal, the State of Karnataka challenges the order in Civil Revision petition No. 956 of 1998. In this case also the civil Judge dismissed the application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act in view of the fact that it was not within time. An appeal was purported to be filed by the claimant under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded. Against the order of the District Court, the revision was filed by the State challenging the competence of the order. The High Court refused to interfere based on the same reasons it had adopted in the order giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 4459 of 1999. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal by special leave. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1566 OF 2001 this appeal challenges the decision of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High court which by a majority held that even though the right to the claimant to apply for compelling a reference under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the State of Karnataka may be lost, the Deputy Commissioner could still make a reference even if it be after ten years, if he so chose and that in such a situation, the court could also compel a reference notwithstanding that the period for applying for reference has expired. The State challenges the above view adopted by the Full Bench by a majority and contends that the minority view holding that once the right to the claimant to apply has come to end, the question of reference does not arise, is the correct one and deserves to be accepted.

(2.) Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") as amended by Act 68 of 1984 provided that a person interested in a land acquired and who has not accepted the award of compensation by the Collector, could apply to the Collector for a reference of his claim within six weeks of the date of the award if he was present at the time of making of the award and within six weeks of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) of the Act if he was not so present. In a case that may not be covered by either of the above situations, the claimant has to make his application within six months of the date of the award of the Collector. The State legislature by an amendment brought to Section 18 of the Act substituted the proviso to Section 18 (2) by replacing the period of six weeks by a period of 90 days and making the starting point, the date of service of notice from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Sub-section (3) was added directing that the Deputy Commissioner should make the reference to the court within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. If he failed to do so within the period of 90 days, the party was given a right under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act to apply to the court to direct the Deputy commissioner to make the reference and the court was conferred the power to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within such period as may be fixed by the court. For the purpose of convenience it will be better to quote the section as amended in the State of Karnataka:"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 determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person 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 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 Commissioner to make the reference within such time as the Court may fix. "the court to which the application was to be made was the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

(3.) As can be seen, no time for applying to the court in terms of sub-section (3) is fixed by the statute. But since the application is to the court, though under a special enactment, Article 137, the residuary article of the Limitation Act, 1963, would be attracted and the application has to be made within three years of the application for making a reference or the expiry of 90 days after the application. The position is settled by the decision of this Court in The Addl. Spl. Land Acquisition officer, Bangalore v. Thakoredas, Major and others (AIR 1994 SC 2227). It was held:"admittedly, the cause of action for seeking a reference had arisen on the date of service of the award under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Within 90 days from the date of the service of notice, the respondents made the application requesting the Deputy commissioner to refer the cases to the Civil Court under Section 18. Under the amended sub-section 3 (a) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall, within 90 days from September 1, 1970 make reference under Section 18 to the Civil Court which he failed to do. Consequently, by operation of sub-section 3 (b) with the expiry of the aforestated 90 days, the cause of action had accrued to the respondents to make an application to the Civil Court with a prayer to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference. There is no period of limitation prescribed in subsection 3 (b) to make that application but it should be done within limitation prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Since no Article expressly prescribed the limitation to make such application, the residuary article under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act gets attracted. Thus it could be seen that in the absence of any special period of limitation prescribed by clause (b) of subsection (3) of Section 18 of the Act, the application should have been made within three years from the date of expiry of 90 days prescribed in Section 18 (3) (b) i. e. the date on which cause of action had accrued to the respondent-claimant. Since the applications had been admittedly made beyond three years, it was clearly barred by limitation. Since, the High Court relied upon the case in Municipal Corporation of athani (AIR 1969 SC 1335) , which has stood overruled, the order of the High Court is unsustainable. "this position is also supported by the reasoning in Kerala State Electricity board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma (1976 (4) SCC 634). It may be seen that under the Central Act sans the Karnataka amendment there was no right to approach the principal civil court of original jurisdiction to compel a reference and no time limit was also fixed for making such an approach. All that was required of a claimant was to make an application for reference within six weeks of the award or the notice of the award, as the case may be. But obviously the State legislature thought it necessary to provide a time frame for the claimant to make his claim for enhanced compensation and for ensuring an expeditious disposal of the application for reference by the authority under the Act fixing a time within which he is to act and conferring an additional right on the claimant to approach the civil court on satisfying the condition precedent of having made an application for reference within the time prescribed.