Case Details Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust and Ors. vs The Chairman and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 August 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 2857 of 2011

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bela M. Trivedi, Dipankar Datta

Citation

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 594 : 2023 INSC 750

Issue for consideration

Award was passed by the Reference Court determining the amount of additional compensation to be paid to the appellant-trust. High Court whether justified in setting aside the award and remanding the matter to decide as to whether the Reference made was within the limitation as per s.18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and decide the Reference afresh.

Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—s.18–Application made by the appelant-trust seeking reference, if was beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 18 or not in consonance with the consent terms arrived at between the parties:

Held: In view of the proviso to s.18, every application to the Collector seeking reference u/s.18 is required to be made within the time limit prescribed in the proviso thereto – However, in the instant case, the parties having entered into the consent terms on 20.10.1997 after the award u/s.11 was made on 12.01.1996, and the respondent having specifically agreed to pay the compensation awarded u/s.11 and take over the vacant and peaceful possession of the lands in question from the appellant as also having agreed to make reference to the District Court for the determination of market value of the said lands as on 17.12.1994, it did not lie in the mouth of the respondent- Committee to say that the application made by the appellanttrust seeking reference to the District Court was beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s.18 or was not in consonance with the consent terms arrived at between the parties – Since the consent terms as well as the directions contained in the order of High Court were silent as to within what period the appellant should make application to the respondent-Collector seeking Reference u/s.18, the respondent-Committee taking undue advantage of such ambiguity in the consent terms, raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court – Reference Court rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court – High Court erred in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh – Impugned judgments passed by the High Court ex facie erroneous, set aside.[Paras 7 and 9]

Interpretat ion of Statutes – Doct rine of Harm onious Construction:

Held: As per the rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, the document has to be read as a whole and in its totality – If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of the clauses of the document, the Courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with the other clauses and with the purpose and intent of the parties executing it.[Para 8]

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The Respondent no. 1- Market Committee had preferred two First Appeals being Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by the II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) in Land Reference No. 525 of 1997. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2009 allowed the First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 and set aside the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Reference Court, and

View Subscription Plans →