STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.versusMARRI VENKAIAH AND ORS.

                     STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.                                    A
                                            v.
                            MARR! VENKAIAH AND ORS.

                                     JULY 28, 2003

i·
                   [M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]                               B


             Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28-A-Land acquired by common
     notification under Section 4-Applicants non-parties to reference proceedings
      initiated by other land owners-Re-determination of compensation amount
     on basis ofAward ofCourt-Application under Section-Period of /imitation- C
      Computation of-From the date of Award by Civil Court or from the date of
      knowledge of passing of award by Civil Court-Held: Application is to be
     filed within three months from the date of pronouncement of Award by the
      Court by only excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the
     award.                                                                       D
           Certain land was acquired by notification issued under Section 4(1) of
     the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
     on 15.1.1982. Some of the land.owners filed reference application in respect
     of lands covered by the award. Civil Court enhanced the amount of
     compensation by an order dated 29.l i.1984. Respondents filed application E
     under Section 28-A on 27.11.1989 for enhancement of the compensation. Land
     Acquisition Officer dismissed the application as time barred. Respondents
     challenged the order. Division Bench of High Court held that three months
     period prescribed under Section 28-A has to be computed from the date of the
     knowledge of the passing of the Award and not from the date of the award by F
     Civil Court. Hence the present appeals.

           Appellants contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by
     the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal, erroneous and contrary to specific
     provisions of Section 28-A.
                                                                                         G
           Respondents contended that Section 28-A is a beneficial legislation; and
     that applicants being non-parties to the reference proceedings initiated by
     some other land owners, they would not have any knowledge of the date of the
     award or its contents, therefore, the interpretation given by the High Court
     to the provisions of Section 28-A does not call for any interference.
                                           Ml                                            H
    842                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A         Allowing the appeals, the Court

          HELD: I.I. Plain language of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 would mean that the period of limitation is three months from the date
    of the Award of the Court. ft is also provided that in computing the period of
    three months, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time
B   requisite for obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded. Therefore,
    Section 28-A crystallizes that application under Section 28A is to be filed
    within three months from the date of the award by the Court by only excluding
    the time requisite for obtaining copy. Hence, it is difficult to infer further
    exclusion of time on the ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant.
C                                                                       1845-A-BI

           1.2. Section 28-A is a beneficial provision. However, the advantage of
    the benefit which is conferred is required to be taken within the stipulated
    time. A land owner may be poor or illiterate and because of that he might not
    have filed reference application but that would not mean that he could be
D   negligent in not finding out whether other landowners have filed such
    applications. Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation
    has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within prescribed time.
    If that is not done then law cannot help him. 1845-F-H; 846-A)

           1.3. In the instant case, award enhancing the compensation was
E   pronounced by the civil court on 29.11.1984 and applications were filed after
    lapse of 5 years. In such case, as the applicant was having an opportunity of
    knowing the award and/or he was required to make efforts of knowing about
    such proceedings, he must be presumed to have had knowledge of the award.
    If the respondent's submission is accepted, it will create total vagueness and
    uncertainty as landowners can claim that they have come to know of the award
F   after long lapse of time and, therefore, the application even though beyond
    time may be entertained. If such applications are entertained, there may not
    be any finality to the award and payment of compensation. Such proceedings
    may adversely affect where land is acquired by the Government for a project
    which is to be carried out by local bodies. (846-A-Cf
G        Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer
    and Anr., (19621 I SCR 676 and State ofPunjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum
    and Anr., (1964) I SCR 971, distinguished.

          Tota Ram v. State of UP. and Ors., I19971 6 SCC 280, relied on.

H         Union of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors., (1997( 6 SCC 59
                    STA TE v. MARR! VENKAIAH [SHAH, J.]                   843

and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and Anr. v. land Acquisition A
Collector and Anr., 11996] 6 SCC 746, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9520-9522 of
1994.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1993 of the Andhra Pradesh          B
High Court in W.P. Nos. 1917, 6410/90 and 4979of1992.

        Guntur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika, for the Appellants.

     A.T.M. Sam path, Ms. T.S. Santhi, V. Balaji and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the
Respondents.                                                                    c
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       SHAH, J. Short question involved in these appeal is - whether the
period of limitation for filing application under Section 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') begins to run from D
the date of passing of the Award by the Court in a reference filed by a
landowner, other than the applicant, whose land was acquired by common
notification under Section 4 of the Act or from the date of the knowledge by
the applicant of passing of the award by the Civil Court?

      Admittedly, in the present case notification under Section 4 ( 1) was E
issued on 16.5.1980 for. acquiring land situated in Garedepalli village of
Nalgonda District for formation of Command Area Development Ayacut Road
under Nagarjunasagar Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
on 15.1.1982.·Some of the landowners filed reference application in respect of
lands covered by the Award and the Civil Court in OP 36 of 1984 by order F
dated 29th November. 1984 enhanced the amount of compensation. Thereafter,
on the basis of the said award, respondents filed application under Section
28-A of the Act on 27th November, 1989 for enhancement of the compensation.
The Land Acquisition Officer by order dated 28th January 1990 dismissed the
said application as barred by limitation under Section 28-A of the Act.
                                                '.                              G
      That order was challenged by filing writ petitions before the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh. The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment
and order dated 24th September, 1993 held that three months period prescribed
under Section 28-A of the Act have to be computed from the date of the
knowledge of the passing of the award and not from the date of the award
by Civil Court and thereby directed the appellants to entertain the applications H
    844                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A filed by the respondents under Section 28-A of the Act and to deal with them
    in accordance with law. The High Court further recommended to the
    Government to bring suitable amendment and the Land Acquisition Act
    authorizing the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector to send intimation
    in relation to passing of the award by the Civil Court to the persons interested,
    who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, to make them
B   know about the said award.

          That order is challenged by filing these appeals.

           Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
    the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is, on the face
C   of it illegal, erroneous and contrary to specific provisions of Section 2S-A of
    the Act. He also submitted that the question involved is squarely covered by
    various decisions rendered by this Court on the said issue .As against this.
    Learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondents submitted that Section
    28-A is a beneficial legislation so as to give a chance to illiterate and poor
D   land owners whose land is acquired by a common notification and who could
    not approach the Court for one or other reason by filing reference application.

          For appreciating the above contention, it would be necessary to refer
    to the relevant part of Section 28-A of the Act, which is as under: -

E           "28A, Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis
            of the award of the Court.-(1) Where in an award under this Part the
            Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess
            of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons
            interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under
            section 4, sub-section (I) and who are also aggrieved by the award
F           of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an
            application to the Collector under section 18, by written application
            to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of
            the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them
            may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation
            awarded by the Court:
G
                Provided that in computing the period of three months within
            which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-
            section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time
            requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be ex~luded."
H
                   STATE v. MARR! VENKA!AH [SHAH, J.]                    845
      Plain language of the aforesaid Section would only mean that the period A
of limitation is three months from the date of the Award of the Court. It is
also provided that in computing the period of three months the day on which
the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of
the award is to be excluded. Therefore, the aforesaid provision crystallizes
that application under Section 28-A is to be filed within three month from the B
date of the award by the Court by only excluding the time requisite for
obtaining copy. Hence, it is difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the
ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant.

       Further, the judgment rendered by the High Court is contrary to the
decision rendered by this Court in Tota Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1997] C
6 SCC 280 wherein this Court held that limitation begins to run from the date
of the award and as per the proviso the time taken for obtaining the certified
copy of the award and the decree is to be excluded in computing the period
of three months. The Court held that in view of the express language the
question of knowledge does not arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner
that limitation of three months begins to start from the date of the knowledge D
is clearly unsustainable and cannot be accepted. Same view is expressed by
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors., (1997] 6 SCC
59 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and Anr. v. Land Acquisition
Collector and Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 746.
                                                                                E
      However, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section
28-A is a beneficial provision and that applicants being non-parties to the
reference proceedings initiated by some other land owners, they would not
have any knowledge of the date of the award or its contents, therefore the
interpretation given by the High Court to the provisions of Section 28-A of
the Act does not call for any interference, and in any case, the question       F
involved be referred to a larger bench.

      In our view, with regard to first contention that Section 28-A is a
beneficial provision, there cannot be any dispute. However, the advantage of
the benefit, which is conferred, is required to be taken within the stipulated G
time. A land owner may be poor or illiterate and because of that he might not
have filed reference application but that would not mean that he could be
negligent in not finding out whether other landowners have filed such
applications. Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation
has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within prescribed time.
He must at least be vigilant in making efforts to find out whether other H
    846                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A landowner has filed any reference application and if so what is the result. If
  that is not done then law cannot help him. Admittedly, in the present case,
  award enhancing the compensation was pronounced by the civil court by
  order dated 29th November 1984 and applications were filed on 27th November,
  1989 i.e. after lapse of 5 years. In such case, as the applicant was having an
B opportunity of knowing the award and/or he was required to make efforts of
  knowing about such proceedings, he must be presumed to have had knowledge
  of the award. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is
  accepted, it will create total vagueness and uncertainty as landowners can
  claim that they have come to know of the award after long lapse of time and,
  therefore, the application even though beyond time may be entertained. If
C such applications are entertained, there may not be any finality to the award
  and payment of compensation. Result may be that such proceedings may
  adversely affect where land is acquired by the Government for a project,
  which is to be carried out by local bodies.

          The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of
D this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition
    Officer and Anr., [ 1962] I SCR 676, which is approved by three Judge Bench
    in State of Punjab v. Mst. QaisarJehan Begum and Anr., [1964] I SCR 971.
  In that case the Court interpreted the proviso to Section I8 of the Act and
  held that clause (a} of proviso was not applicable in the said case because
E person making application was not present or was not represented before the
  Collector at the time when he made his award. The Court also held that notice
  from the Collector under Section 12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part
  of clause (b) of the proviso would not be applicable. The Court, therefore,
  referred to second part of proviso which provide that such application can
  be made within six months from the date of the Collector's award. In the
F context of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the award
  by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of market price by the State 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, second part of the proviso must
G mean the date when either the award was communicated to the party or was
  known by him either actually or constructively.

        Aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable for interpretation of Section
  28-A because there is no question of issuing notice to such applicant as he
  is not party to the reference proceeding before the Court. The award passed
H by the Court cannot be termed as an offer for market price for purchase of
                  STATE v. MARRI VENKAIAH [SHAH, J.)                    847
the land. There is no duty cast upon the Court to issue notice to the A
landowners who have not initiated proceedings for enhancement of
compensation by filing reference applications; may be that their lands are
acquired by a common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. As
against this, under Section 18 it is the duty of the Collector to issue notice
either under. Section 12(2) of the Act at the time of passing of the award or B
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 Section
18 is six months from the date of the Collector's award.

      In this view of the matter, we do not think that the judgment rendered
by this Court in Tota Ram (supra) requires re-consideration.                 C
      In the result appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order
as to costs.

N.J.                                                      Appeals allowed. D