Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for a valid reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act: Shahid Jamal vs. State of U.P. (30 January 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 85

Judges: Kurian Joseph J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J.

What happens when a landowner is not satisfied with the compensation awarded for their acquired land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This judgment clarifies what constitutes a valid application for referring a compensation dispute to a higher court, focusing on the timing and necessary details of such applications. The Court’s decision ensures that landowners’ rights to challenge compensation awards are protected, while also setting clear guidelines for the process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with Justice Kurian Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land belonging to Shahid Jamal and others by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31 March 1999, determining the compensation for the acquired land. However, the compensation was only paid on 7 April 1999. The landowners received the compensation under protest, indicating their disagreement with the amount awarded.

The landowners claimed that they were not provided with a copy of the award, which they needed to file a detailed objection. Despite this, they submitted an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24 July 1999. This application requested that their case be referred to the court for a review of the compensation.

The Land Acquisition Officer responded on 25 September 1999, stating that a notice of the award had been sent on 31 March 1999, which the landowners refused to sign. The officer also mentioned that a photocopy of the award was provided on 7 April 1999, but the landowners did not acknowledge receiving it. The officer accused the landowners of trying to delay the process to take advantage of the time limit for filing a reference.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court dismissed the landowners’ petition, stating that the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed beyond the six-month time limit. The High Court considered the date of knowledge of the award to be 7 April 1999, when the compensation was received. The High Court concluded that the detailed application filed on 30 December 1999, which included the grounds for reference, was beyond the prescribed period. The landowners then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This section provides a mechanism for landowners to challenge the compensation awarded for their acquired land. It allows them to request that the matter be referred to the court for a determination of the correct compensation amount.

Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, states:
“Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.”

Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, specifies that the application for reference must be made within six months from the date of the award.

Arguments

The appellants (landowners) argued that their application dated 24 July 1999, which explicitly requested a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, should be considered a valid application. They emphasized that they had received the compensation under protest and that the Land Acquisition Officer had not provided them with a certified copy of the award. According to the appellants, the letter dated 25.09.1999 from the Land Acquisition Officer, which is within six months period, shows that the certified copy of the Award was not furnished to them, and only a photocopy was given.

The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that a valid application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act must not only request a reference but also include the grounds for the reference. They argued that the detailed application filed on 30 December 1999, which contained the grounds for reference, was beyond the six-month time limit. The State argued that the landowners were aware of the award on 7 April 1999, when they received the compensation, and therefore, the time limit should be calculated from this date.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made on 24 July 1999, which did not contain the grounds for reference, should be considered a valid application?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any previous cases or books in its judgment. The primary focus of the court was on the interpretation of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the specific facts of the case.

The Court considered the following legal provision:

• Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section outlines the procedure for landowners to seek a reference to the court for a determination of their compensation.

Judgment

The Court held that the request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made on 24 July 1999 should be treated as a proper application. The Court noted that the landowners had accepted the compensation under protest and had made a specific request for reference within six months.

The Court also considered the fact that the certified copy of the award had not been furnished to the appellants. The Court observed that the letter dated 25 September 1999, from the Land Acquisition Officer, which was within the six-month period, confirmed that the certified copy of the award had not been provided to the landowners.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice. It directed that the appellants would not be entitled to any interest on any enhanced compensation from 7 April 1999, when they received the compensation, till 29 June 2012, the date of filing the special leave petition.

The Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference within four weeks and the Reference Court to dispose of the same within three months.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Specific Request for Reference: The Court emphasized that the landowners had made a specific request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed time limit.
• Compensation Received Under Protest: The fact that the landowners had received the compensation under protest indicated their disagreement with the award, which the court considered as a key factor.
• Non-Provision of Certified Copy of Award: The Court noted that the certified copy of the award had not been provided to the landowners, which made it difficult for them to furnish the grounds for reference immediately.
• Letter dated 25 September 1999: The Court took note of the communication from the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 25 September 1999, which was within the six-month period, and confirmed that the certified copy of the award had not been provided to the landowners.

The Court’s decision was based on a combination of factual considerations and the interpretation of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that landowners are given a fair opportunity to challenge the compensation awarded to them, particularly when they have clearly indicated their disagreement with the award.

The Court stated:
“Having regard to the fact that the appellants had accepted the compensation under protest on the point of sufficiency of the compensation and having made a specific request for reference under Section 18 on 24.07.1999, which indisputably is within six months, we are of the view that this is a case where the request under Section 18 of the Act made on 24.07.1999 should be treated as a proper application.”

The Court also observed:
“It may also have to be seen that before rejection the grounds had also been furnished after receipt of the certified copy of the Award. Ordered accordingly.”

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice:
“However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that we should also invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and pass certain further orders for doing complete justice between the parties regarding the interest from 07.04.1999, the date when the appellants received the compensation, till the filing of this special leave petition on 29.06.2012 in the interest of any enhancement. Accordingly, for the said period, in the event of any enhancement, the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest.”

Key Takeaways

• A specific request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made within the prescribed time limit, is sufficient to be considered a valid application.
• Landowners who receive compensation under protest are entitled to have their case referred to the court for a determination of the correct compensation amount.
• The grounds for reference can be furnished later, especially when the certified copy of the award has not been provided to the landowners.
• The Supreme Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice in cases involving land acquisition.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Reference Court was directed to dispose of the reference within three months thereafter.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a specific request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made within the prescribed time limit, is sufficient to be considered a valid application, even if the grounds for reference are not provided immediately. This clarifies the requirements for a valid application under Section 18 and ensures that landowners are not denied their right to seek a reference to the court due to technicalities. This judgment also reinforces the importance of providing landowners with a certified copy of the award to enable them to file detailed objections.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shahid Jamal vs. State of U.P. clarifies that a specific request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, made within the prescribed time limit, is a valid application, even if the grounds for reference are not immediately provided. This decision protects the rights of landowners to challenge compensation awards and emphasizes the importance of providing a certified copy of the award. The Court’s invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution underscores its commitment to ensuring complete justice in land acquisition cases.