STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LAXMAN RAMCHANDRA PARANDWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad, Alibag passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 88 of 1981, on two grounds, firstly, that no reference could have been entertained by the Reference Court as the claimants did not raise any abjection in reply to the notice issued under section 9 (3) (4) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("act" for short ). Secondly, that additional component of compensation @ 12% in the sum of Rs. 48,722. 40 could not have been granted in favour of the land owner as the Award was made by the Collector prior to 30th April, 1982. In support of first submission, reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO v. B. V. Reddy and Sons, (2003) 3 SCC 463; whereas in support of second contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of kashiben Bhikabai v. Special Land Acquisition officer, (2002) 2 SCC 605. The respondents, though filed their appearance through their counsel but none of them were present to oppose this appeal when it was called out for final hearing.

(2.) HEARD learned A. G. P. for the appellant. Perused record and proceedings. Before embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to notice the provision of section 25 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in contrast to the amended provision of section 25 of Act. Section 25, prior to its amendment by Act 68 of 1984.

(3.) AS per the scheme of the Act, after publication of preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act and issuance of public notice of the substance of such notification by the collector, objections are entertained and heard, as provided under section 5-A of the Act. The appropriate Government if becomes satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose, a declaration to that effect is required to be made under section 6 of the Act. Such declaration is the conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. The appropriate Government or the officer authorised by the appropriate government directs the Collector to make order for the acquisition of the land, as provided under section 7 and the Collector then causes the land to be marked and measured and also he is supposed to make a plan of the same. The Collector thereafter causes public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land, stating that the government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him, as provided under section 9. The notice under section 9 (1) has to give necessary particulars, as provided under subsection (2) of "the said section and the Collector then serves the notice on the occupier of the land as well as on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or would be entitled to act for persons so interested, or agents authorised to receive service on their behalf within the revenue district in which the land is situated. Section 11 confers power on the Collector to hold an inquiry with regard to the measurements made as well as inquiry as to the valuation of the land on the date of notification under section 4 (1) and thereafter he has to make an award under his hand. Such award of the Collector is required to be filed in the Collector's office and under law is held to be final and conclusive evidence, as between the collector and the persons interested on the question of true area and value of the land and apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. On the above canvas of the scheme, now it is necessary to turn to sections 18 and 25 of the Act. Section 18 entitles the person interested, who has not accepted the award, to make a written application to the Collector, requiring that the matter of determination of compensation be referred to a competent court. Section 25, however; as it stood prior to its amendment, required the claimant to claim compensation, pursuant to any notice given under section 9. In the event of reference under section 18 the amount awarded to him by the Reference court cannot exceed the amount so claimed and cannot be less than the amount awarded by the collector under section 11. The aforesaid provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 25, thus, limits the power of the Reference Court on a reference being made under section 18 to the quantum of compensation which could be swarmed. The said section 25 now stands amended. In view of the amendment to section 25, it is clarified that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, meaning thereby the limits under the an amended section put on the powers of the Reference Court on a reference being made under section 18 to the higher quantum of compensation have been done away. However, the said amendment to section 25 has been held to be prospective in operation by the Apex Court and is made to apply only to the acquisitions made subsequent to 24th September, 1984. In the present case, the reference being of 1981, it would be within the sweep of an amended section 25 of the act. Turning to the facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute that in the present case no reply to the notice issued under section 9 (3) (4) was given by the claimants. They did not make any claim for compensation. In that view of the matter, it was not open for the respondents to invoke jurisdiction of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act. A reference, in that view of the matter, was not maintainable in view of the apex Court judgment in the case of B. V. Reddy and Sons (supra ).