9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Competency of civil court to reject a reference on the ground of limitation under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. - Determination of the timeliness of the application for a reference under the proviso to s. 18 of the Act. - Conflict of judicial opinion on whether the civil court can decide the competency of a reference based on limitation. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal by special leave from a decision of the Punjab High Court concerning an application in revision related to a reference made by the Collector of Gurgaon under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The primary issue addressed was whether a civil court could reject a reference on the ground of incompetency due to the application being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The High Court relied on a previous Division Bench decision, leading to conflicting judicial opinions on the matter. The Supreme Court highlighted the conflict and the need for resolution in a more appropriate case in the future. The case involved two ladies who were evacuees and owners of land acquired by the State for a Firing and Bombing Range without proper notice. The respondents filed an application for a reference under s. 18 of the Act, claiming ignorance of the award until July 1955 when compensation was received. The Senior Subordinate judge held the application barred by time, questioning the date of knowledge and the civil court's authority to decide on limitation issues. The High Court set aside the judge's order, directing a review on merits, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the proviso to s. 18 of the Act, determining the timeliness of the application based on the date of knowledge of the award. Referring to the decision in Raja Harish Chandra's case, the Court emphasized the importance of actual or constructive knowledge of the award's contents for calculating the limitation period. The Court concluded that the application made on September 30, 1955, was within the six-month limit from the date of knowledge, thus not barred by time as per the proviso. Regarding the civil court's authority to decide on limitation issues in a reference under s. 18, the Supreme Court acknowledged the conflicting judicial opinions. While some decisions allowed the civil court to verify the validity of a reference, others limited its jurisdiction to specific objections raised in the application. The Court opted not to resolve this conflict in the present case, deeming it unnecessary due to the timely application. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the timeliness of the reference application and avoiding a definitive ruling on the civil court's jurisdiction over limitation matters in such references.
|
