REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6976-6980 of 20 !

Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc.

Appellants

Versus

Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Respondents

JUD"MENT

D#. B. S. CHAUHAN$ J.

!hese appeals have "een preferred a#ainst the $ud#%ent and

order dated &'. .&( & passed ") the *i#h +ourt of ,udicature at Bo%"a) in -rit Petition .os. & /(0// of &((12 3herein the *i#h +ourt has upheld the $ud#%ent of the Land Acquisition +ollector re$ectin# the application under Section &4A of the Land Acquisition Act2 41/ 5hereinafter referred to as 6the Act78 on the #round of

li%itation.

Page 1

&. A.

9acts and circu%stances #ivin# rise to these appeals are that: !he land of the appellants stood notified under Sections / and ;

of the Act in 11/01'. A3ard in respect of the said land 3as also %ade on /. &. 11'. B. Appellants did not file applications under Section 4 of the Act

rather so%e other <interested persons= 3hose land 3as also covered ") the sa%e notification under Section / of the Act filed references and one such reference2 i.e. L.A.R. .o. > / of 111 3as decided on >./.&((;. +. 9or the purpose of filin# application under Section &4A of the

Act2 counsel for the appellants applied for a certified cop) of the +ourt a3ard on ?.'.&((;2 and thou#h the cop) of the said a3ard 3as read) for deliver) on &1.'.&((;2 it 3as o"tained ") learned counsel for the appellants onl) on >.;.&((;. Application for re0deter%ination of the a%ount of co%pensation 3as filed on appellants2 on the "asis of the said +ourt7s a3ard. @. !he Special Land Acquisition +ollector vide order dated 4.?.&((; ") the

&&.1.&((42 re$ected the said application on the #round that the sa%e 3as filed 3ith a dela) of / da)s.

Page 2

E.

A##rieved2 the appellants challen#ed the said order "efore the

*i#h +ourt. !he sa%e stood dis%issed vide i%pu#ned $ud#%ent and order dated &'. .&( &. *ence2 these appeals. >. Shri Gaurav A#ar3al2 learned counsel appearin# on "ehalf of has su"%itted that Section &40A of the Act 3as

the appellants

inserted ") a%end%ent in 14? and "ein# a "eneficial le#islation it should "e interpreted li"erall) and period of li%itation should "e considered and deter%ined on all equita"le #rounds. At is 3ell0nei#h possi"le for an) person to file an appeal 3ithout havin# Bno3led#e of the orderCa3ard and therefore2 the li%itation should "e counted fro% the date of acquisition of Bno3led#e of the +ourt a3ard. Dore so2 the dela) 3as onl) of t3o da)s and certainl) not of four da)s. An order to fortif) his case Shri Gaurav A#ar3al has placed reliance upon the $ud#%ents of this +ourt in B%&'(&) D&s * O#s. +. S,&,- of U.P. * O#s.2 AAR &( ( S+ '>&E and P#-./0 N&,%1 +. S,&,- of "1/&#&, * A)#.2 AAR &( & S+ ;&/. /. Ds. Dadhavi @ivan2 learned counsel appearin# on "ehalf of the

respondents2 has opposed the appeal contendin# that personal

Page 3

inconvenience or hardship of an individual cannot "e a consideration for interpretin# statutor) provisions in case the lan#ua#e of the statute is plain and una%"i#uous. At is to "e #iven onl) strict literal

interpretation. An the instant case2 there is no a%"i#uit) so far as the statutor) provisions are concerned. !herefore2 li%itation is to "e

taBen as prescri"ed under the statute. An support of her case Ds. Dadhavi @ivan has placed reliance upon the $ud#%ents of this +ourt in To,& R&. +. S,&,- of U.P. * O#s.2 5 11?8 ; S++ &4(E U)0o) of I)20& * O#s. -,3. +. M&)'&,1 R&. -,3.2 AAR 11? S+ &?(/E S,&,of A.P. * A)#. +. M&##0 V-)4&0&% * O#s.2 AAR &((> S+ &1/1E D-s R&/ 5deceased ") L.Rs.8 * A)#. +. U)0o) of I)20& * A)#.2 AAR &((/ S+ '((>E and S,&,- of O#0ss& * O#s. +. C%0,#&s-) B%o0 2 5&((18 ? S++ ?/. '. -e have considered the rival su"%issions %ade ") learned

counsel for the parties and perused the records. !he sole question for the consideration of the court is 3hether li%itation for filin# the application for re0deter%ination of the co%pensation under Section &4A of the Act 3ould co%%ence fro% the date of the a3ard or fro% the date of Bno3led#e of the court7s a3ard on the "asis of 3hich such application is "ein# filed.
4

Page 4

;.

!hou#h2 there is nothin# on record to su"stantiate the

appellants7 clai% that the) could acquire the Bno3led#e of the +ourt7s a3ard onl) on ?.?.&((; and i%%ediatel) tooB steps to file

application for re0deter%ination under Section &4A of the Act. ?. !he issue involved herein is no %ore res-integra. !he

appellants7 case "efore the *i#h +ourt as 3ell as "efore us has "een that the li%itation 3ould co%%ence fro% the date of acquisition of Bno3led#e and not fro% the date of a3ard. !hou#h2 Shri Gaurav A#ar3al2 learned counsel for the appellants2 has fairl) conceded that there is no occasion for this +ourt to consider the application of the provisions of the Li%itation Act2 1;> 5hereinafter called the FAct 1;>78 inas%uch as the provisions of Section ' of the said Act. 4. Section &4A of the Act reads as under: <&40A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court .G5 8 -here in an a3ard under this Part2 the court allo3s to the applicant an) a%ount of co%pensation in eHcess of the a%ount a3arded ") the +ollector under Section 2 the persons interested in all the other land covered ") the sa%e notification under Section / su"0section 5 8 and 3ho are also a##rieved ") the a3ard of the +ollector %a)2 not3ithstandin# that the) had not %ade an application to the +ollector under Section 42 ") 3ritten application to the +ollector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the a%ount of
5

Page 5

co%pensation pa)a"le to the% %a) "e redeter%ined on the "asis of the a%ount of co%pensation a3arded ") the court: Provided that in co%putin# the period of three %onths 3ithin 3hich an application to the +ollector shall "e %ade under this su"0section2 ,%- 2&5 o) (%03% ,%&(&#2 (&s 6#o)o1)3-2 and the ,0.- #-710s0,- fo# o8,&0)0)' & 3o65 of ,%- &(&#2 shall "e eHcluded.= 5E%phasis added8

1.

An R&/& H&#0s% C%&)2#& R&/ S0)'% +. D-61,5 L&)2

A3710s0,0o) Off03-# * A)#.$ AAR 1; S+ '((2 this +ourt dealt 3ith the issue of li%itation 3hile dealin# 3ith an application under Section 4 of the Act2 and it 3as o"served therein that unless a part) had Bno3led#e of the order2 the question of approachin# the appropriate foru% challen#in# the order2 does not arise. !herefore2 it is the date of the Bno3led#e fro% 3hich the li%itation 3ould start. !he +ourt o"served : .....The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the e pression!!."n our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable!!..where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned!#

Page 6

(.

!his +ourt in U)0o) of I)20& * O#s. +. M&)'&,1 R&. * O#s.

5supra8E and To,& R&. +. S,&,- of U.P. * O#s. 5supra82 dealt 3ith the issue involved herein and held that as the Land Acquisition +ollector is not a court and acts as a quasi $udicial authorit) 3hile %aBin# the a3ard2 the provisions of the Act 1;> 3ould not appl) and2 therefore2 the application under Section &4A of the Act2 has to "e filed 3ithin the period of li%itation as prescri"ed under Section &4A of the Act. !he said provisions require that an application for re0 deter%ination is to "e filed 3ithin > %onths fro% the date of the a3ard of the court. !he proviso further provides that the period of li%itation is to "e calculated eHcludin# the date on 3hich the a3ard is %ade and the ti%e requisite for o"tainin# the cop) of the a3ard. . An S,&,- of A.P. * A)#. +. M&##0 V-)4&0&% * O#s. 5Supra82

this +ourt reconsidered the aforesaid $ud#%ents includin# the $ud#%ent in R&/& H&#0s% C%&)2#& R&/ S0)'% 5supra8 and held that the statute provides li%itation of > %onths fro% the date of a3ard ") the court eHcludin# the ti%e required for o"tainin# the cop) fro% the date of a3ard. I, %&s )o #-9-+&)3- so f&# &s ,%- 2&,- of &3710s0,0o) of 4)o(9-2'- 85 ,%- &66903&), 0s 3o)3-#)-2. An vie3 of the eHpress lan#ua#e of the statute2 the question of Bno3led#e did not arise and2
7

Page 7

therefore2 the plea of the applicants that li%itation of > %onths 3ould "e#in fro% the date of Bno3led#e2 3as clearl) unsustaina"le and could not "e accepted. !he +ourt also re$ected the contention of the applicants that a "eneficial le#islation should "e #iven a li"eral interpretation o"servin# that 3hosoever 3ants to taBe advanta#e of the "eneficial le#islation has to "e vi#ilant and has to taBe appropriate action 3ithin ti%e li%it prescri"ed under the statute. Such an applicant %ust at least "e vi#ilant in %aBin# efforts to find out 3hether the other land o3ners have filed an) reference application and if so2 3hat is the result thereof. Af that is not done then the la3 cannot help hi%. !he ratio of the $ud#%ent in R&/& H&#0s% C%&)2#& R&/ S0)'% 5supra8 3as held to "e non0applica"le in case of Section &40A of the Act. !he +ourt o"served: !!."n that case, the $ourt interpreted the proviso to %ection &' of the (ct and held that clause )a* of the proviso was not applicable in the said case because the person making the application was not present or was not represented before the $ollector at the time when he made his award. The $ourt also held that notice from the $ollector under %ection &+)+* was also not issued, therefore, that part of clause )b* of the proviso would not be applicable. The $ourt, therefore, referred to the second part of the proviso which provides that such application can be made within si months from the date of the $ollector,s award. "n the conte t of the scheme of %ection &' of the (ct, the $ourt held that the award by
8

Page 8

the -and (cquisition .fficer is an offer of market price by the %tate for purchase of the property. Hence, for the said offer, knowledge, actual or constructive, of the party affected by the award was an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. Therefore, the second part of the proviso must mean the date when either the award was communicated to the party or was known by him either actually or constructively. The aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable for interpretation of Section 2 !" because there is no question of issuing notice to such an applicant as he is not a party to the reference proceeding before the court. The award passed by the court cannot be termed as an offer for market price for purchase of the land. There is no duty cast upon the court to issue notice to the landowners who have not initiated proceedings for enhancement of compensation by filing reference applications/ maybe, that their lands are acquired by a common notification issued under %ection 0 of the (ct. (s against this, under %ection &' it is the duty of the $ollector to issue notice either under %ection &+)+* of the (ct at the time of passing of the award or in any case the date to be pronounced before passing of the award and if this is not done then the period prescribed for filing application under %ection &' is si months from the date of the $ollector,s award.# 5E%phasis added8 A si%ilar vie3 has "een reiterated ") this +ourt in D-s R&/ 5supra8 and C%0,#&s-) B%o0 5supra8. &. An vie3 of a"ove2 there is no occasion for us to consider the

$ud#%ents cited at the "ar on "ehalf of the appellants in support of its case. Dore so2 the said $ud#%ents have "een delivered ") this +ourt 3hile dealin# 3ith the applications under Section 4 of the Act. Af
9

Page 9

there are directl) applica"le precedents on the issue2 the sa%e have to "e follo3ed rather than to search for a ne3 interpretation unless it is esta"lished that the earlier $ud#%ents require reconsideration. !he su##estion of reconsideration has specificall) "een re$ected ") this +ourt in M&##0 V-)4&0&% 5supra8. >. At is a settled le#al proposition that la3 of li%itation %a)

harshl) affect a particular part) "ut it has to "e applied 3ith all its ri#our 3hen the statute so prescri"es. !he +ourt has no po3er to eHtend the period of li%itation on equita"le #rounds. !he statutor) provision %a) cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular part) "ut the +ourt has no choice "ut to enforce it #ivin# full effect to the sa%e. !he le#al %aHi% dura le sed le # 3hich %eans <the la3 is hard "ut it is the la3=2 stands attracted in such a situation. At has consistentl) "een held that2 <inconvenience is not= a decisive factor to "e considered 3hile interpretin# a statute. <A result flo3in# fro% a statutor) provision is never an evil. A +ourt has no po3er to i#nore that provision to relieve 3hat it considers a distress resultin# fro% its operation.=

10

Page 10

5See : T%- M&#,0) B1#) L,2. +. T%- Co#6o#&,0o) of C&931,,& 2 AAR 1;; S+ '&1E and Ro%0,&s :1.&# * O#s. +. O. P#&4&s% S%&#.& * O#s.2 AAR &( > S+ >(8 An vie3 of the a"ove2 3e are of the candid vie3 that none of the su"%issions advanced on "ehalf of the appellants is tena"le. /. As the %atters are squarel) covered ") the a"ove referred to

$ud#%ents2 these appeals are devoid of an) %erit. !he cases do not 3arrant an) interference. !he appeals are2 accordin#l)2 dis%issed.

;.;;;;;;..........J. <DR. B.S. CHAUHAN=

;...................................J. <S.A. BOBDE= NE> DELHI? A1'1s, 22$ 20 !

11

Page 11