Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case name : Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Citations: Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., (2013)10 SCC 765

Date of Judgement: 22/08/2013

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6976-6980 of 2013

Case Type: Civil Appeal.

Appellant: Popat Bahiru Govardhane

Respondent: Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Bench: Hon’bleJustice B.S. ChauhanHon’ble Justice S.A. Bobde

Statutes Referred:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections – 4,6,11,12(2),18,28A.

Limitation Act, 1963; Section – 5.

Cases Referred:

Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 1532; Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1624; Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 280; Union of India & Ors. etc. v. Mangatu Ram etc., AIR 1997 SC 2704; State of A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 2949; Des Raj (deceased by L.Rs.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 5003; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chitrasen Bhoi, (2009) 17 SCC 74; Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1500; The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529; Rohitas Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 30.

Facts:

• The appellant’s (Popat Bahiru) land was notified under Land Acquisition Act, and an award for the same was passed. The appellant did not file any application for objection but later filed an application under section 28A of the said act.
• Thereafter the appellant applied for certified copy of award but obtained it only after 4 days.
• The Special Land Acquisition Collector rejected the application on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 4 days. Aggrieved, by the decision the appellant challenged the said order before the High Court and the same stood dismissed. Thus, this appeal was filed in Supreme Court.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether limitation for filing the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act would commence from the date of the award or from the date of knowledge of the court’s award?
2. Whether the appellant should be allowed to appeal?

Contention of Appellant:

The counsel of the appellant contended that –

1. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was inserted by an Amendment in 1987 and being a beneficial legislation, it should be interpreted liberally.
2. It is not possible for any person to file an appeal without having the knowledge of award therefore, the period of limitation should be counted from the date of acquisition of knowledge of the Court award. Hence the delay was only of two days and certainly not of four days.
3. The counsel referred the following judgements to support his case, Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. and Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Contention of Respondent:

The counsel of the respondent contented that–

1. If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous strict interpretation should be taken. Personal inconvenience or hardship of an individual cannot be a ground for interpreting statutory provisions in such a case.
2. In this case, there is no ambiguity so far as the statutory provisions are concerned, thus limitation should run from date of award.
3. The counsel referred the following judgements to support case, Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors, Union of India & Ors. etc. v. Mangatu Ram etc, State of A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Ors, Des Raj (deceased by L.Rs.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., and State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chitrasen Bhoi, (2009).

Judgement:

The appeal was dismissed. The court said, “It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

Ratio Decedendi:

• Proviso of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act clearly provides limitation of 3 months from the date of award by the court excluding the time required for obtaining the copy from the date of award. It has no relevance so far as to the date of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is concerned.
• The advantage of the beneficial legislation must be given to the person who is vigilant and has to take appropriate action within time limit prescribed under the statute.
• The court used a legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard, but it is the law”; to further justify the harshness of limitation act.

Obiter Dicta:

N/A

Conclusion:

The apex court reconsidered the precedents in State of A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Orsand Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. and held that, statute provides limitation of 3 months from the date of award by the court excluding the time required for obtaining the copy from the date of award and dismissed the appeal. The court has further referred to The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta and Rohitas Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors, stating that “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.”

Drafted By – Harshpreet Kaur, Lloyd Law College