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 remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question as to whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and decide the Reference afresh. (Para 1)
The learned senior counsel Mr. B.H. Marlapalle appearing for the appellant- trust submitted that findings arrived at by the High Court with regard to the issue of limitation are ex facie erroneous. (Para 3)
We are of the opinion that the issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper. As discernible from the consent terms, the very purpose of arriving at the said consent terms was to do away with the hardship caused to both the parties because of the pendency of the Writ Petition. A monetary loss was being caused to the appellant- trust as it was losing the interest on the awarded amount under Section 11 of the said Act, and the respondent no. 1- Committee though was in dire need of the land, was deprived of the possession of the said lands under Acquisition. As per the said consent terms, both the parties had agreed that the relevant date for determining the market value of the lands in question would be 17.12.1994. It was further agreed that the appellant- trust would hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent- Committee and the appellant would be paid the amount determined under the Award under Section 11 of the Act by the respondent- Committee within four weeks from the date of the order passed by the Court. Lastly, it was agreed that the appellant- trust shall within a period of four weeks file an application to the respondent no. 2 under Section 18 of the Act and the respondent no. 2 shall send the said reference for determination of value of the land as on 17.12.1994 to the District Court, Nashik. The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the said consent terms. (Para 5)
Now, 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 under Section 18 of the Act, the respondent- Committee taking undue advantage of such ambiguity in the consent terms, raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court. Such a plea raised after taking over the possession of lands in question from the appellant was not only not in consonance with the tenor of the consent terms but it smacked of ulterior motive on the part of the respondent. (Para 6)
It was required to be construed that appellant had to make application after it received the compensation awarded under Section 11 and after it handed over possession of the lands, which it did. (Para 7)
It cannot be gainsaid that 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)
The Reference Court after considering all the legal and factual aspects of the matter had rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court. In our opinion, the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings recorded by the Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court being ex facie erroneous, the same are set aside. (Para 9)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 198 SC
[2023INSC750]
Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust & Ors. Vs. Chairman & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 2857 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2011-Decided on 22-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-198-SC.pdf
