# Param Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 333
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-03-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44463 of 1997
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/param-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40367
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act-S. 18-Reference
under-Application
for-Limitation-Award
passed
on
26.2.1992-Application
for
reference under S. 18 filed on 30.7.1996Applicants came to know about the
award on 3.6.1996-Application, held,
within time-Direction that notice with
copy of award must be sent either by
Regd. Post or personally though some
messenger or through coureer and if
service is not effected in that manner,
then notice with essential contents of
award should be published in newspaper
having wide circulation-in the area.

Held: Paras 11 & 11

In our opinion the notice alongwith the
copy of the award must be sent to the
person concerned either by Registered
A/D post or personally through some
messenger or by courier, and if service is
not affected in that manner then the
notice with the essential contents of the
award should be published in some well
known
newspaper
having
wide
publication.

In the present case in the counter
affidavit it has only been stated that the
award was published by pasting it in the
notice board of the office of the SLAO
and by beat of drums (munadi). In our
opinion this is not adequate and hence
we have to conclude that proper notice
of the award was not given to the
petitioners, and they came to know of
the
award
only
on
3.6.96.
The
application under S. 18 was filed well
within 6 months of that date.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1961 SC 1500
AIR 1963 SC 1604
JT 1995 (2) SC 572
AIR 1989 Petitioner & H 261
AIR 1985 Guj. 170
1989 LACC 246

## Text

1 All] Param Singh and others V. State of U.P. and another 333
9. Accordingly, this writ petition
succeeds and the impugned order dated
5.1.2004 is quashed with the liberty to the
concerned authority to proceeds afresh in
accordance with law against the petitioner
and pass a fresh order after affording him
reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Ordered accordingly.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44463 of 1997

Param Singh and others
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Mithal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act-S. 18-Reference
under-Application
for-Limitation-Award
passed
on
26.2.1992-Application
for
reference under S. 18 filed on 30.7.1996Applicants came to know about the
award on 3.6.1996-Application, held,
within time-Direction that notice with
copy of award must be sent either by
Regd. Post or personally though some
messenger or through coureer and if
service is not effected in that manner,
then notice with essential contents of
award should be published in newspaper
having wide circulation-in the area.

Held: Paras 11 & 11

In our opinion the notice alongwith the
copy of the award must be sent to the
person concerned either by Registered
A/D post or personally through some
messenger or by courier, and if service is
not affected in that manner then the
notice with the essential contents of the
award should be published in some well
known
newspaper
having
wide
publication.

In the present case in the counter
affidavit it has only been stated that the
award was published by pasting it in the
notice board of the office of the SLAO
and by beat of drums (munadi). In our
opinion this is not adequate and hence
we have to conclude that proper notice
of the award was not given to the
petitioners, and they came to know of
the
award
only
on
3.6.96.
The
application under S. 18 was filed well
within 6 months of that date.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1961 SC 1500
AIR 1963 SC 1604
JT 1995 (2) SC 572
AIR 1989 Petitioner & H 261
AIR 1985 Guj. 170
1989 LACC 246

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned orders dated 4.10.97
Annexure-5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition
and for a mandamus directing the
respondents to forward the reference
application under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act for decision by the
District Judge, Ghaziabad.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this case it appears that the
award was given by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 26.2.92 and the
application under section 18 of the Act
was
filed
only
on
30.7.96.
That
application has been dismissed by the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
impugned order as time barred. Aggrieved
this petition has been filed in this Court.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act states that every application under
section 18 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."

3. In the present case the application
was filed after a delay of more than four
years. It has been stated in paragraph 11
of the petition that the petitioners came to
know about the award dated 25.2.92 for
the first time on 3.6.96 when other
villagers whose
land was
similarly
acquired
went
to
collect
the
compensation.

4. It is stated in paragraph 8,9 and
10 of the petition that the petitioners or
their representative were not present when
the award was given and no information
was given by the SLAO that the award
would be pronounced on 25.2.92. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the date of the award should mean the
date of knowledge of the award as held by
the Supreme Court in Harish Chand Raj
Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition
Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500; State of
Punjab v. Qaisar Jahan Begum, AIR
1963 SC 1604; State of Punjab v.
Satindra Bir Singh JT 1995 (2) SC 572,
Jaswant
Rai
v.
Land
Acquisition
Collector, AIR 1989 Punjab & Haryana
261; Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy
Collector, AIR 1985 Gujrat 170; Usaf v.
Collector ,1`989 LACC 246.

5. In the counter affidavit it has been
stated that due information was given of
the declaration of the award dated
26.2.92. Notice of the award was pasted
on the notice Board of the office of the
SLAO and copy of the said notice was
also
sent
for
public
advertisement
(munadi) through the chainmen (peon) in
the concerned village. True copies of
these notices are CA-1 and 2 to the
counter affidavit. It has further been
stated in paragraph 8 of the counter
affidavit that other nearby land holders
namely Dharampal, Dharamveer both son
of Kale and Gajraj son of Harchander
filed their application under section 8 of
the Land Acquisition Act well within time
i.e. in the year 1992 and hence the
contention of the petitioner that they had
knowledge of the award for the first time
on 3.6.96 cannot be accepted. Even from
3.6.96 the reference was barred by time as
the petitioner has filed the same after six
weeks.

In our opinion this petition deserves
to succeed.

6. There is no dispute that petitioner
or his representatives were not present
when the award was delivered. Hence
clause (a) of the proviso to section 18 (2)
does not apply. As regard clause (b) this
is in two parts. The first part states that
the application has to be moved within six
weeks of receipt of the notice from the
Collector under section 12 (2).

7. There is no allegation in the
counter affidavit that the Collector sent
any notice to the petitioner. In our opinion
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Moradabad Development Authority V. Hussain Bux and another 335
mere pasting on the notice board or
munadi (beat of drums) does not amount
to notice from the Collector under section
12. Hence it has to be held that the period
of limitation is six months from the date
of the Collector's award. It is well settled
that date of award means the date of the
knowledge of the award as held in the
aforementioned decisions.

8. In our opinion the mode of notice
by beat of drums (munadi) is totally out
dated in this modern age. If an award is
given it should be communicated by the
Collector as required by section 12 (2),
which states: -

"the Collector shall give immediate
notice of his award to such of the
persons interested as are not personally
present or by their representatives
when the award was made"

9. The obligation on the Collector is
not only to intimate the passing of the
award but to communicate the essential
contents of the award if not a copy of it
vide AIR 1995 Gujrat 170. This is
necessary to enable the tenure holder to
exercise his valuable right under section
18 within the time prescribed.

10. In our opinion the notice
alongwith the copy of the award must be
sent to the person concerned either by
Registered
A/D
post
or
personally
through some messenger or by courier,
and if service is not affected in that
manner then the notice with the essential
contents of the award should be published
in some well known newspaper having
wide publication.

11. In the present case in the counter
affidavit it has only been stated that the
award was published by pasting it in the
notice board of the office of the SLAO
and by beat of drums (munadi). In our
opinion this is not adequate and hence we
have to conclude that proper notice of the
award was not given to the petitioners,
and they came to know of the award only
on 3.6.96. The application under S. 18
was filed well within 6 months of that
date.

For the reasons given above this
petition is allowed. Impugned orders are
quashed. The Collector is directed to
make the reference to District Judge under
section 18 forthwith.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 15.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

First Appeal No. 135 of 1997

Moradabad Development Authority

...Appellant
Versus
Hussain Bux and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Singh
Sri A.K. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Rai

Constitution of India, Article 226-Land
Acquisition
Act-S.
18-Acquisition
of
land-Award
of
compensationScandalous practice going on in Western
U.P. districts in collusion with certain
judicial officers-As a result exorbitant
compensation
is
being
awarded
by
reference courts under S. 18 of L.A. Act
in
collusion
between
certain
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in