MOHAMMAD HASNUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, and it involves an important question namely, whether a court in dealing with a reference under S. 14, sub-s. (1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, 1309 Fasli, corresponding to S. 18, sub-s. (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can go behind the reference made by the Collector if the application on which the reference has been made is beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follow:The case arises from that part of the erstwhile princely State of Hyderabad, known as Marathwada, which merged in the State of Bombay under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The land belonging to the appellant admeasuring 2057 sq. yards in the city of Aurangabad, has been acquired by the State Government under S. 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a building for the medical college at Aurangabad. The Government published a notification under S. 3 (1) on the 28th of February, 1958. On the 13th of January, 1962 the Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad made an award directing payment of Rs. 1,318,11P. inclusive of 15 per cent solaium as compensation to the appellant at the rate of 37 np. per sq. yard, as against his claim for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. The said award was communicated to the appellant on the 20th of Jan,. 1962. The appellant instead of making an application for reference under Section 14, sub-s. (1) of the act, filed an application for review before the Land Acquisition Officer on the 5th of February, 1962 requesting him 'to revise the award' stating further that 'in case it was not revised he would seek his remedy in court of law'. The Land Acquisition Officer obviously felt that the amount fixed by him was too low and accordingly on the 17th of Feb., 1962 made a recommendation, through the Collector, to the Secretary to the State Government that the award be reconsidered. But, the Collector by his order dated 23rd of March, 1962 declined to forward the same and informed the appellant that he must seek his remedy in a court of law.

(3.) Eventually, on the 14th of May 1962 the appellant made an application for reference under Sec. 14, sub-sec. (1) of the Act and prayed that the period spent in the proceedings for the review before the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to the date of the award be excluded while considering the question of limitation under S. 14 of the Limitation Act. A reference was made under S. 14, sub-sec. (1) of the Act to the District Court of Aurangabad. The Assistant Collector, Aurangabad, who was the Land Acquisition Officer, while making a reference made no expression of his opinion whether the application was time-barred or not, evidently taking the view that the point should be left for the decision of the court. He, however, while making the reference gave a complete narration of facts and left the question open. A preliminary objection was raised by the Government that the reference was incompetent, the application being time-barred. This objection prevailed and the contention of the appellant based on S 14 of the Limitation Act was negative both by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad by his order dated the 28th of June, 1962, and by the High Court of Bombay by its order dated the 5th of Feb. 1968 holding that the time taken between the 5th of Feb., 1962 and the 23rd of March, 1962 could not be excluded while computing the period of limitation prescribed under S. 14, sub-s. (1) of the Act inasmuch as S. 14 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the proceedings, and further, that even if it applied the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of S. 14 of the Limitation Act, stating that good faith, which is also a necessary ingredient under S. 14, was not established.