SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusSTATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

                            [2016] 2 S.C.R. 144



A                          SHAKUNTLA DEVI
                                     v.
                      STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
                       (Civil Appeal No. 2043 of2011)
B                            MARCH 02, 2016
    [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.)
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.18 - Land acquisition
  ·proceedings taking long time and as a result, authorities proposing
   settlement of the compensation on negotiation - Negotiated award
c passed    stating that land value is fixed on negotiation and appellant
   shall not be entitled for seeking any enhancement of market value
   uls.18 but appellant shall be entitled for market value for the
   structures and trees separately - Supplementary Negotiated award
   for building and trees fixed with a condition therein that valuation
D was negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits
   under the Act would be admissible over and above - The award
   further stated that it was enhanced in absentia and, therefore, notiee
   u!s.12(2) be issued to interest holders immediately - Claim for
   statutory benefits - High Court held that the writ petitioners having
   accepted the land value on negotiated settlement was not justified
E
   in seeking any statutory benefits - Held: Appellant had not accepted
   the award - Filing of writ petition before the expiry of six months
   from the date of the Negotiated award would also show that the
   appellant had taken steps to vindicate her grievances regarding
   insiifficiency of compensation by approaching High Court u!Art.226
F - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for doing
   complete justice, the appellant is given an opportunity to make a
   request for reference u/s.18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition
   Collector for enhancement of compensation and for all other original
   benefits in respect of the Supplementary Negotiated Award - If
G such an application for reference is made before the Collector who
   passed the Award within four weeks, the same shall be referred to
   the Court of competent jurisdiction within a month thereafter and
   the said Reference Court shall dispose of the reference expeditiously
   and preferably with a period of six months thereafter.
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
H
                                     144
             SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.                         145


       HELD: 1. The appellant-writ petitioner had not accepted A
the Award; if so, she would not have pursued the inadequacy of
compensation before the High Court in the writ petition. Section
18 of the Act entitles interested persons who had not accepted
the Award to seek a reference to the Court. No doubt, as per
Section 18(2) of the Act, the reference should be made within
                                                                        B
six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the _Collector
under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the
date of Collector's Award, whichever period shall first expire.
The Negotiated Supplementary Award seems to have been made
on 18.12.2009 and the writ petition was filed on 20.05.2010.
That apart, in the State of H.P., the Collector is entitled to extend · C
the period for receipt of the application for reference beyond six
weeks and upto six mo:mths, in case he is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the
application. [Para 8] [147-H; 148-A-C]
        2. This is an Award announced in absentia and there is a D
direction to serve notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is also
seen from the counter affidavit filed by the State before the High
Court that the amount awarded, as per the Supplementary
Negotiated Award, had been received by the appellant only on
01.06.2010,_ after filing the writ petition before the High Court
on 20.05.2010. Thus, it is _clear that the appellant had not accepted E
the Award, there being an objection with regard to amount_ of
compensation, particularly regarding statutory benefits. It was
specifically stipulated in the .Negotiated Award pertaining to the
land, announced on 11.09.2008 that " .....The interested persons
are not entitled for seeking enhancement of market value of F
land under Section 18 of the Act ...". Such a stipulation is
conspicuously absent in the Supplementary Negotiated Award
<in the structures and trees announced on 18.12.2009, impugned
before the High Court in writ petition. Filing the writ petition
before the expiry of six months from the date of the Negotiated
Award, would also show that the appellant had taken steps to G
vindicate her grievance regarding insufficiency of compensation,
by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. That step taken by the appellant is, in any
case, within six months; In these circumstances, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case and for doing complete justice, H
146             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     the appellant should be given an opportunity to make a request
      for reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Land
      Acquisition Collector for enhancement of compensation and for
      all other original benefits in respect of the Supplementary
      Negotiated Award. [Paras 9, 10-11] [148-E-H; 149-A-B]
B           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043
      of2011
           From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2010 of the High Court
      ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 2535 of2010
            Ravi Bakshi, (For Yash Pal Dhingra), Adv. for the Appellant.
c          Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Karamveer Jindal, Advs., for the
      Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            KURIAN, J.: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
D            2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment
      dated 01.11.2010 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shim la in
      C.W.P. No. 2535 of2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ
      petition.
           3. A notification under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
 E  1894 (in short, 'the Act') was issued at the instance of the State of
   Himachal Pradesh-Respondent No. '. for the purpose of widening of
   Theog Kotkhai-Hatkoti road (T.K.H.) on 13.06.2008. Being a time bound
   project, having found that acquisition proceedings might take a long time,
   the respondents proposed settlement of the compensation on negotiations
 F and acquired the land accordingly. It appears that in respect of the land
   _of the appellant, a Negotiated Award dated 11.09.2008 was passed
   wherein it was stated that the land value had been fixed on negotiations
   and the appellant shall not be entitled for seeking any enhancement of
   the market value under Section 18 of the Act. It was also specifically
   stated in the said Negotiated Award that " ... But they are entitled for
 G the market value for the structures and trees (if any) separately, as per
   the market value which will be determined by the expert agencies in due
   course of time at the time of announcement of Supplementary Award
   along with the market value of the land, which will be notified by the
   government under Section 4( I) of the Act if required to be acquired at a
    later stage .... "
 H
      SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P. [KURIAN, J.)                             147


       4. Thereafter, according to respondents, a supplementary A
Negotiated Award was passed on 18.12.2009, in continuation of the
Negotiated Award dated 11.09.2009 in respect of the land. It is stated
therein that, as per the valuation report provided by the Superintending
Engineer (PWD) and the Deputy Director (Horticulture), total value of
the building and trees was fixed at Rs.37,34,264/-, which according to
                                                                               B
the respondents and as stated in the Negotiated Award, "this valuation
was negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits under the
Act will be admissible· over and above." However, it is also stated in the
said Award that "this award was enhanced in absentia, therefore, the
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act be issued to interest holders
immediately".                                                                  c
       5. It is the case of the appellant that the said Negotiated
Supplementary Award dated 18.12.2009 is not a negotiated one and the
rates have been fixed unilaterally. That it is not negotiated is evident
from the Award itself wherein it is stated that the rates have been fixed
as per the report of the Superintending Engineer (PWD) and Deputy
                                                                               D
 Director (Horticulture) and still further that the Award has been so passed
in absentia, it was specifically stated in the Supplementary Award that
notice under Section 12(2) would be issued.
       6. The High Court, in the impugned judgment took the view that
the writ petitioner, having accepted the land value .on negotiated settlement,
 was not justified in seeking any statutory benefits. However, it was noted · E
 at paragraph 3 of the judgment that:
      ·"3. As far as the payment compensation for structures and trees
       is concerned, it is obvious that the settlement was only with regard
       to the value of the land and not with regard to the structure and
       trees and, therefore, supplementary award in this regard was              F
       passed."
      7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, howeve.r, submits that
the Negotiated Supplementary Award is only in continuation of the original
Award for land, and therefore, Supplementary Negotiated Award should
be read as part of the Award on land value. It is also contended that            G
having accepted the compensation, there is no justification in turning
down and seeking further benefits.
      8. We are unable to appreciate the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the State. One thing to be noticed is that the appellant-
writ petitioner had not accepted the Award; if so, she would not have            H
148              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     pursued the inadequacy of compensation before the High Court in the
      writ petition. Section 18 of the Act entitles interested persons who had
      not accepted the Award to seek a reference to the Court. No doubt, as
      per Section 18(2) of the Act, the reference should be made within six
      weeks from the date ofreceipt ofnotice from the Collector under Section
      12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's Award,
B
      whichever period shall first expire. The Negotiated Supplementary Award
      seems to have been made on 18.12.2009 and the writ petition was filed
      on 20.05.2010. That apart, in the State of H.P., the Collector is entitled
      to extend the period for receipt of the application for reference beyond
      six weeks and upto six months, in case he is satisfied that the applicant
c     was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application. By virtue
      of Himachal Pradesh Act 17 of 1986, w.e.f., 22.07 .1986, Section 18 of
      the Act was amended by adding a proviso. The said proviso reads as
      follows:
            "Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application
D           under this section after the expiry of the period of six weeks but
            within a period of six months, ifhe is satisfied that the applicant
            was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in
             tiine."
              9. As we have noted above, this is an Award announced in absentia
 E    and there is a direction to serve notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act.
      It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed by the State before the
      High Court that the amount awarded, as per the Supplementary
      Negotiated Award, had been received by the appellant only on
      01.06.2010, after filing the writ petition before the High Court on
      20.05.2010.
 F
             10. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had not accepted the Award,
      there being an objection with regard to amount of compensation,
      particularly regarding statutory benefits. It was specifically stipulated in
      the Negotiated Award pertaining to the land, announced on 11.09.2008
      that" ... The interested persons are not entitled for seeking enhancement
 G    of market value ofland under Section 18 of the Act ... ". Such a stipulation
      is conspicuously absent in the Supplementary Negotiated Award on the
      structures and trees announced on 18.12.2009, impugned before the High
      Court in writ petition. Filing the writ petition before the expiry of six
      months from the date of the Negotiated Award, would also show that
      the appellant had taken steps to vindicate her grievance regarding
 H
      SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. STATE OF H.P. [KURIAN, J.]                           149



insufficiency of compensation, by approaching the High Court under           A •
Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. That step taken by the appellant
is, in any case, within six months.
       11. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for doing complete
justice, the appellant should be given an opportunity to make a request      B
for reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition
Collector for enhancement of compensation and for all other original
benefits in respect of the Supplementary Negotiated Award.
       12. If such an application for reference is made before the Land
Acquisition Collector who passed the Award within four weeks, the same       c
shall be referred to the Court of competent jurisdiction within a month
thereafter and the said Reference Court shall dispose of the reference
expeditiously and preferably with a period of six months thereafter.
      13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.                                                           D
Devil'a Gujral                                         Appeal disposed of.