Summary
Land near Surat was acquired for a Reliance gas compressor station, with compensation awarded at Rs 69 per sq. m. The award was served on 25 April 2011. The owners challenged the acquisition and award in writ proceedings. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition but reserved liberty to seek enhancement, and the SLP was dismissed on 11 April 2013. The owners sought a reference under Section 18 on 1 July 2013. The Reference Court rejected it as time-barred, and the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court remitted the reference for decision on merits within nine months. The liberty granted, and the filing within six months of the end of the challenge, meant the reference could not be rejected as time-barred. This was not a case of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issues
- Whether a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed within six months of the dismissal of the landowners' challenge to the acquisition and in terms of liberty reserved by the High Court, could be rejected as barred under Section 18(2).
Provisions considered
- Sections 12(2) and 18(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Although the limitation for a reference cannot be extended and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply (Shah Manilal Chandulal, Mahadeo Bajirao Patil), a reference made pursuant to liberty reserved by the High Court within six months of the end of the challenge was not to be rejected as time-barred. (¶¶ 7, 9)
Held
- While dismissing the writ petition challenging the acquisition and the award, the High Court reserved liberty to pursue remedies for enhancement; the reference filed on 01.07.2013, within six months of the SLP's dismissal on 11.04.2013, could not in view of that liberty be dismissed under Section 18(2). (¶ 7)
- The High Court's observation that it was too late to complain of inadequate compensation was made while considering the challenge to the acquisition and did not negate the liberty granted; the High Court ought to have remitted the reference for decision on merits. (¶ 8)
- The settled rule that limitation under Section 18 cannot be extended does not apply, since this was not a case of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the decisions relied on by the respondents involved no comparable facts. (¶ 9)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 9004 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Gujarat High Court judgment dated 10.03.2022 in Regular First Appeal No. 492 of 2022 and the Reference Court's order dated 20.10.2021 set aside, and the reference remitted for decision on merits within nine months.