# Agya Pal Sareen v. A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1485
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 26600 of 2007
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/agya-pal-sareen-v-a-d-m-g-b-nagar-ors-50123
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - The U.P. Land Acquisition
Act, 1894- claim of compensation rejected
being
time
barred-impugned
orderPetitioner submitted his application u/s 18
of Act, 1894-noticedated 12.04.2004 served
upon the Petitioner was not accompanied
with the copy of the award-Petitioner came
to know on 13.01.2004 only after receiving
copy of notice dated 12.08.2004 -date of
collector's award mentioned in proviso (b)
to sec. 18 (2) of the Act, 1894-must be
treated the date on which Petitioner came
to
know
about
the
award-harmonious
construction-six months period from the
date of Collector's award will start from
24.08.2004 and will expire on 24.02.2005Application was well within time-impugned
order bad.
1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Agya Pal Sareen Vs. A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors.
1485
the reason that the instrument in question
was executed on 27.01.2011 and it is well
settled that chargeability of the stamp duty
has to be examined with reference to the
date
of
execution
of
instrument.
Proposition
to
this
effect
has
been
consistently laid down by this Court in
various authorities including Shahid Ali vs
Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly
and others, reported in 2013 (6) ADJ 425
and Har Charan Lal Ice & Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2013 (2) AWC 1731. Therefore,
the insistence of learned Standing Counsel
regarding remand is liable to be rejected,
also for the reason that if inspection is
carried out today, i.e. in the year 2023 that
would be wholly irrelevant for the purposes
of determination of stamp duty on the date
of execution of sale deed i.e. 2011.
Therefore, such spot inspection would
neither be of any significance nor relevant
for the purposes of deciding the matter.

25. In view of above, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

26. The order dated 06.05.2013
passed
by
respondent
No.
3,
Collector/District
Magistrate,
Gautam
Budh Nagar in Case No. 14/2011-12 (State
vs Rajkumar) as well as order dated
07.09.2015 passed by respondent No. 2,
Chief
Controlling
Authority/Board
of
Revenue, U.P. Circuit Road, Meerut in
Appeal No. 107/M/2013-14 (Rajkumar
Bhati vs State of U.P.) are hereby quashed
by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

27. A writ of Mandamus is also
issued to the effect that any amount
deposited by the petitioner either prior to
filing of this writ petition or in pursuance
of any interim order passed in the present
case, shall be refunded to the petitioner
along with simple interest at the rate of 6%
per anum from the date of its deposit till the
date of actual payment,within a period of
three months, on moving appropriate
application by the petitioner along with
certified copy of this order before the
authority concerned.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1485
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 26600 of 2007

Agya Pal Sareen ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Srivastava, Sri V.P. Mathur,
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law - The U.P. Land Acquisition
Act, 1894- claim of compensation rejected
being
time
barred-impugned
orderPetitioner submitted his application u/s 18
of Act, 1894-noticedated 12.04.2004 served
upon the Petitioner was not accompanied
with the copy of the award-Petitioner came
to know on 13.01.2004 only after receiving
copy of notice dated 12.08.2004 -date of
collector's award mentioned in proviso (b)
to sec. 18 (2) of the Act, 1894-must be
treated the date on which Petitioner came
to
know
about
the
award-harmonious
construction-six months period from the
date of Collector's award will start from
24.08.2004 and will expire on 24.02.2005Application was well within time-impugned
order bad.
1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) &
ors. Vs Shah Manilal Chandulal & ors.(1996) 9
SCC 414

2. Bhagwan Das Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 545

3. Madan & anr. Vs St. of Mah., (2014) 2 SCC
720

4. Vijay Mahadeo Rao Kubade Vs St. of Mah.,
(2018) 8 SCC 266

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 3.

2. By means of present petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
27/28.04.2007 passed by respondent no.1
by which application for petitioner under
Section 18 of U.P. Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act,
1894')
for
referring
the
matter
for
determination of court regarding amount of
compensation was rejected on the ground
that the same was time barred.

3. Factual matrix of the present case is
that the State has issued notification dated
06.01.1992 under Section 4 of the ''Act,
1894' and thereafter notification dated
22.09.1992 under Section 6 of the ''Act,
1894' for acquiring the land for plan
development by respondent no.2- Noida
Development Authority. By way of above
notification, 1/3rd part in Khasra No. 151
belongs to petitioner in village Hazipur,
Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired. The
award for the portion land of the petitioner
in Khasra No.151 was also given on
13.01.2004 by respondent No.1. After
delivering the award, registered notice
dated 12.08.2004 under Section 12(2) of
''Act, 1894' was also issued to the petitioner
which was received by the petitioner
admittedly on 24.08.2004. After receiving
the aforesaid notice, petitioner filed an
objection dated 25.08.2004 against the
notice dated 12.08.2004 but no action was
taken. Thereafter the petitioner submitted
an application dated 20.09.2004 before the
Collector,
Gautambudh
Nagar
under
Section 18 of the ''Act, 1894' to refer the
matter to the Court for determination of
higher/correct
compensation
for
the
acquired land of the petitioner. When the
above
application
dated
20.09.2004
remained undisposed then the petitioner
preferred a Writ Petition No. 6180 of 2007
before this Court and the same was
disposed of by order dated 08.02.2007
directing the Collector to decide the
application dated 20.09.2004 submitted by
the petitioner under Section 18 of the ''Act,
1894'.

4. In pursuance of the order dated
08.02.2007 of this Court, respondent no.1
has passed the impugned order dated
27.04.2007
after
hearing
the
parties
including the petitioner and rejected the
same on the ground that the same is time
barred because the application of the
petitioner under Section 18 was submitted
on 20.09.2004 but as per Section 18(2)(b)
of the ''Act, 1894'. It should have been filed
within six months from the date of award
i.e. till 12.07.2004.

5. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the impugned order
dated
27/28.04.2007
passed
by
the
5 All. Agya Pal Sareen Vs. A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors.
1487
respondent no.1 is absolutely erroneous
because the petitioner first time came to
know about the award dated 13.01.2004
only after receiving the notice dated
12.04.2004 under Section 12(2) of the ''Act,
1894'
on
24.08.2004.
Thereafter
he
immediately filed his application dated
20.09.2004 under Section 18 of the ''Act,
1894' therefore, the same was within six
weeks from the date of receiving the notice
under Section 12(2) of the ''Act, 1894'.
Therefore, his application under Section 18
of the Act, 1894 was well within time and
therefore prayed for quashing of the
impugned order.

6. Counsel for the respondent no.2 as
well as Standing Counsel for the State have
submitted that the impugned order is
absolutely correct because application of
the petitioner under Section 18 of the ''Act,
1894' was time barred because the same
was filed beyond six months from the date
of award and also relied upon the
judgements Officer on Special Duty (Land
Acquisition) and Ors. vs Shah Manilal
Chandulal and Ors. reported in (1996) 9
SCC 414 and Bhagwan Das vs State of
U.P. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 to show
that Section 5 of Limitation Act is not
applicable in the application under Section
18 of the ''Act, 1894'.

7. Considering the rival contention of
parties and perusal of record, we find it is
admitted
position
that
the
petitioner
submitted his application under Section 18
of the ''Act, 1894' on 20.09.2004 though he
received notice dated 12.04.2004 under
Section 12(2) of the ''Act, 1894' on
24.08.2004.

8. Section 18(2) of the ''Act, 1894'
provides the limitation for filing the
application for referring the matter to the
court. For ready reference, Section 18 of
the ''Act, 1894' is quoted hereinbelow;

"18(2) The application shall state
the grounds on which objection to the
award is taken:

Provided
that
every
such
application shall be made, -

(a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector
at the time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the Collector's
award;

(b) in other cases, within six
weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
Collector under Section 12, sub-section(2),
or within six months from the date of the
Collector's award, whichever period shall
first expire."

9. From perusal of Section 18(2)(a) of
the ''Act, 1894', it is clear that if the
person/tenure
holder
was
present
or
represented before the Collector at the time
of making award then the limitation period
is six weeks from the date of Collector's
award. While Section 18(2)(b) provides in
other cases, where the person was not
present/ represented before the Collector at
the time of making award then limitation
period would be six weeks from the date of
receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 or
within six months from the date of
Collector's award, whichever period shall
first expire.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Madan and another vs State of
Maharashtra reported in (2014) 2 SCC
720 observed that expression the date of
Collector's award used in proviso (b) to
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 18(2) of the Act must be
understood to mean that date when the
award is either communicated to the party
or is known by him either actually or
constructively. It was further held in the
above
judgement
that
it
will
be
unreasonable to construe the words "from
the date of Collector's award" used in
proviso to Section 18 in a literal or
mechanical way. Para 9 and 10 of the
judgement Madan and another (supra) is
quoted hereinbelow;

"9.
From
the
order
dated
29.10.1993 passed in L.A.R. No. 75/1992, it
is, inter alia, clear that there was a dispute
amongst the land owners (the appellants
are one set of such land owners) in respect
of their respective shares in the acquired
land on account of which no apportionment
of compensation was made by the Collector
who made a Reference under Section 30 of
the Act to the court. Further, in the order
dated 29.10.1993 it is recorded that the
appellants had no knowledge of the Award
till the order dated 4.9.1991 came to be
passed in the Reference under Section 30.
In Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) this
Court has held that the expression "the
date of the award" used in proviso (b) to
Section 18(2) of the Act must be understood
to mean the date when the award is either
communicated to the party or is known by
him either actually or constructively. It was
further held by this Court that it will be
unreasonable to construe the words "from
the date of the Collector's award" used in
the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or
mechanical way. In the present case, it has
already been noticed that a finding has
been recorded by the Reference Court in its
order
dated
29.10.1993
that
"the
petitioners had no knowledge about the
passing of the award till the date of
payment of compensation on 5.9.1991
because they were held entitled to receive
the compensation after the decision of
Reference
under
Section
30
dated
4.9.1991."

10. What transpires from the above is
that it is for the first time on 4.9.1991 (date
of the order under Section 30 of the Act)
that the appellants came to know that they
were entitled to compensation and the
quantum thereof. It is not in dispute that the
Reference under Section 18 was made
within 6 weeks from the said date i.e.
4.9.1991. In the above facts, it is difficult to
subscribe to the view taken by the High
Court to hold that the Reference under
Section 18 was barred by limitation."

11 Similarly in the judgement of
Vijay Mahadeo Rao Kubade vs State of
Maharashtra reported in (2018) 8 SCC
266. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
if the land owner did not get copy of award
along with notice under Section 12(2) of
''Act, 1894' then notice will not be treated
as valid notice, therefore, subsequent
submission of application for reference
under Section 18(2) will not be treated as
time barred. Paras 10 and 11 of the
aforesaid judgement are being quoted
hereinbelow;

"10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, relies on
the judgment of Premji Nathu v. State of
Gujarat and Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 250,
wherein this court has observed as under;

"20. In the light of the above, it is to b
e seen whether the conclusion
recorded by the Reference Court, which
has been approved by the High Court
that the application filed by the appellant
was barred by time is legally sustainable.
5 All. Agya Pal Sareen Vs. A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors.
1489

21. A careful reading of the
averments contained in Para 2 of the
application filed by the appellant under
Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued

by
the
Collector
under Section
12(2) was served upon
him
on
22.2.1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtaine
d certified copy of the award and filed
application dated 08.04.1985 for making a
reference to the Court. This implies
that
the copy of the award had not been sent to
 the appellant along with the notice and
without that he could not have effectively
made an application for seeking reference.

22.
On behalf of the State Government,
no
evidence
was
produced
before
the
Reference Court to show that the copy of
the
award was sent to the appellant along
with the notice. Unfortunately, while
deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been
totally ignored by the Reference Court
which mechanically concluded that the
application
filed on 8.4.1985 was beyond
the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The
learned Single Judge of the High Court
also committed serious error by approving
the view taken by the Reference Court,
albeit without considering the fact that the
notice issued by the Collector under
Section 12(2) was notice was essential for
effective exercise of right vested in the
appellant to seek reference under Section
18(1). (emphasis supplied).

11.
The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Government,
has not disputed the aforesaid proposition
of law. Accordingly, we are of the opinion
that
the
aforesaid
observations
are
squarely applicable to the present case as
the notice dated 04.12.1987, was not
accompanied with the award. In this case,
there could not have been a valid notice of
the award, by letter dated 04.12.1987,
under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the
Land Acquisition Act, until the appellant
received a certified copy of the award,
which he did on 03.02.1988. Therefore, the
reference
for
enhancement
was,
accordingly, not barred by limitation."

12. From perusal of record, it is clear
that notice dated 12.04.2004 under Section
12(2) of Land Acquisition Act served upon
the petitioner on 24.08.2004 was not
accompanied with the copy of the award
dated 13.01.2004 and petitioner came to
know about the award dated 13.01.2004
only after receiving the copy of the notice
dated 12.08.2004 under Section 12(2) of
the Act, 1894. From legal position
discussed above, it is clear that the date of
Collector's award mentioned in proviso
(b) to Section 18(2) of the ''Act, 1894'
must be treated the date on which the
petitioner came to know about the
aforesaid
award.
Admittedly,
the
petitioner came to know about the award
dated 13.01.2004 only after notice under
Section 12(2) dated 12.08.2004.

13. In view of above time period of
six month from the date of Collector's
award will commence from 24.08.2004 the
date on which the petitioner came to know
about the award dated 13.01.2004. It is
undisputed that the petitioner has submitted
application under Section 18(2) before the
Collector on 20.09.2004 which was within
six weeks from the date of receipt of notice
dated 12.08.2004 under Section 12(2) of
the ''Act, 1894'. Therefore on harmonious
interpretation of proviso (b) of Section
18(2) of the ''Act, 1894' with the law laid
down by the Apex Court as mentioned
above six months period from the date of
Collector's
award
will
start
from
24.08.2004 and that will expire on
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.02.2005 and six weeks from the date of
receipt of notice dated 12.08.2004 received
on 24.08.2004 will expire on 05.10.2004.
Therefore the period six weeks from the
date of receipt of notice under Section
12(2) had expired first on 5th October,
2004 and six months time form the date of
Collector's award had expired subsequently
i.e. on 24.02.2005.

Therefore, application of the
petitioner dated 20.09.2004 was well within
time within six weeks of notice under
Section 12(2), therefore, the impugned
order dated 27.04.2017 rejecting the
application
dated
20.09.2004
of
the
petitioner as time barred is absolutely
erroneous hence liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the same is quashed and the
respondent no.1 is directed to pass
appropriate order on the application dated
20.09.2004 of the petitioner under Section
18 of the ''Act, 1894' for referring his case
to Court for determination of compensation
treating the same within time.

14. Aforesaid exercise will be
completed by respondent no.1 within a
period of three months from the date of
receiving the copy of this order.

15. In view of above, present writ
petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1490
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 31340 of 2017

Hari Sagar Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ambika Prasad Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, H S Tiwari,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

Writ Petition - for direction to the authority - to
allot the Fair Price Shop in pursuance of a
proposal of the Gaon Sabha which was in favour
of the petitioner - complaint - said proposal
was passed without confirmation and signature
of the Pradhan - court finds that, there is a
statutory provision for proceedings of the
meetings, a proposal which has not been
confirmed and signed by the Pradhan, it cannot
be said to be a valid proposal and the proposal
made therein would be valid - held, no direction
can be issued for taking decision in pursuance
of the said proposal which has not been
confirmed and singed by the Pradhan, therefore
it cannot be acted upon - consequently, writ
petition dismissed.
(Para - 10, 12)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Ajay Singh, learned Standing Counsel and
Shri H.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.

2. This petition has been filed for a
direction to opposite party no.3 to allot the
Fair Price Shop of Village-Rampur Kasiha
(Rampur), Vikas Khand-Sangipur, TehsilLalganj,
District-Pratapgarh
to
the
petitioner in pursuance of the proposal
dated 11.10.2017.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that a proposal was made
in favour of the petitioner for allotment of