BAHADUR SINGH K JHALA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Learned Extra Joint District Judge, Pune dated 31st January, 1992. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed Land Reference No. 23 of 1987 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

(2.) The appellant herein is the original claimant. The claimant was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 127/3, C.T.S. No. 633B/14 situated at Kothrud, Pune 29. The claimant has constructed buildings for Jhala Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Kamlesh Co-operative Housing Society and Asavari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Pune in the locality. When the layout plan was sanctioned owned by the claimant, he was given to understand that the portion of land would be acquired for D.P. Road. Hence, the claimant kept the portion of this land for that purpose. The claimant has also constructed a pucca road at his own cost on the portion of the land reserved for D.P. Road. The claimant also received some compensation by way of negotiations in respect of the other nearby lands. The land under acquisition was thereafter acquired and the claimant was served with notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. A notification under section 126 sub-clause (4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 read with section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1997 was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 27th August, 1983. The property bearing Survey No. 127/3, C.T.S. No. 633/B14 was the subject-matter of the acquisition. However while publishing the notification there was a mistake in mentioning the survey number and after correcting the mistake, the corrigendum was published in the Gazette on 4th January, 1986 in which the survey number of the land under acquisition was corrected. The claimant appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and filed his objections for determining the compensation. Since the Claimant lodged his objection on 5th May, 1985 i.e. prior to corrigendum, it can be presumed that he was aware that the land is sought to be acquired on the basis of notification dated 27th August, 1983. The aforesaid date is required to be taken as basis for determining the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering various sale instances declared his Award on 1st January, 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,44,600/. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant claimant sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter was referred to the District Court, Pune and it was numbered as Land Reference No. 23 of 1987. The learned judge however found that the reference is beyond the period of limitation as the same was not filed within the period of 6 months from service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimant. On merits also, the learned trial judge has found that the Land Acquisition Officer has declared the Award after considering the evidence on record and there is no scope for any enchancement of the compensation. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned trial judge this appeal has been preferred by the claimant.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, has attacked the judgment of the trial Court both on the ground of rejecting the reference on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Kanetkar that at the time of intimating the Award to the claimant, the contents of the Award was not sent to the claimant and therefore the claimant applied for certified copy of the Award and the reference was sought for by the claimant within a period of 6 weeks from receipt of certified copy of the award. It is submitted, that the reference is within the limitation period and the trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that it is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the contents of the Award were not known and therefore, unless, the claimant receives the copy of the Award it will not be possible to pay large Court fees, if he is required to take legal opinion on this as to whether the matter is worth litigating further. Mr. Kanetkar has relied upon various judgments in support of his contentions. On merits, Mr. Kanetkar submitted the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly appreciated various sale instances and is at fault in determining the compensation for various pieces of land. He submitted that the compensation should have been awarded atleast at the rate of Rs. 300 per sq.mtr instead of Rs. 140/- per sq.mts granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.