SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, October 19, 2024

Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1046

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 2857 of 2011

Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust and Others
… Appellants;
Versus
Chairman and Another … Respondents.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2011
Shree Nasik Panchavati Panjarapole Trust and
Others … Appellants;
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another … Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2857 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2011
Decided on August 22, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s) Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Avinish Kumar Saurabh, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Pravin Wagh, Adv.
Mr. Preshit Vilas Surshe, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, AOR
Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.:— 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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, October 19, 2024
Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The High Court vide the separate order of the
even date, disposed of the First Appeal No. 1490 of 2006 observing
that in view of the order passed in First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006, the
appeal had become infructuous. The appellant-trust has preferred the
instant appeals being aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in
First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court.
2. Though the case has a chequered history, the bare facts necessary
for the purpose of deciding the present appeals may be summarised as
under:
(i) The lands bearing Survey Nos. 74, 75, 76 and 29 situated at
Nashik, Makhamalabad belonging to the appellant-trust were
sought to be acquired by the respondent no. 2 for the respondent
no. 1- Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 126 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 vide the Notification dated
17.06.1993.
(ii) In the said acquisition proceedings, an award was declared under
Section 11 of the Act on 12.01.1996. The appellant-trust filed the
Writ Petition being No. 607 of 1996 challenging the said
proceedings on the ground that the award declared was beyond
the statutory period of limitation. Initially the High Court granted
an ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellant (the petitioner
in the said petition) on 06.02.1996, against which the respondent
had preferred a special leave petition before this Court. However,
the SLP came to be dismissed by this Court.
(iii) Since by virtue of the said interim order passed in the said writ
petition, the possession of the lands in question continued with
the appellant-trust, and though an award was declared under
Section 11 of the Act, the amount awarded remained with
respondent no. 2, considering the hardship caused to both the
parties, the appellant (the petitioner in the said petition) and the
respondent no. 1- Agricultural Produce Market Committee (the
respondent no. 4 in the said writ petition) arrived at a Settlement
on 20.10.1997 and requested the High Court to dispose of the
said writ petition in terms of the consent terms arrived at between
the parties.
(iv) The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition No. 607 of
1996 by passing the following order on 20th October, 1997:—
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, October 19, 2024
Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“By consent of Parties Petition taken up for final hearing on

board today. The consent terms between the petitioner and 4th
Respondent taken on record.
Perused the Consent Terms. The same are just, fair, and
equitable and hence are accepted.
In view of the above, this shall be an order in terms of
Consent Terms and it is hereby directed as under:
(a) It is directed that the relevant date for determining market
value of suit land would be 1 & 1/2 year after the publication
of (illegible) Notification under Section 6 i.e., 17.06.1993
and consequently both parties agree and admit that Market
Value be determined as on 17.12.1994 date.
(b) It is further directed that the petitioner shall hand over
vacant and peaceful possession to the 4th Respondent
through 2nd respondent within 4 weeks from the date of this
order and that the petitioner Trust shall be paid the amount
determined under the Award under section 11 by the 2nd
respondent at the time of handing over possession.
(c) It is further directed that the Petitioner Trust shall within 4
weeks file an Application to 2nd respondent under section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the 2nd Respondent
is directed to send the reference to District Court, Nasik
within 4 weeks from the date of receipt. It is further directed
that the District Court after hearing the reference shall
determine the Market Value as on 17.12.1994 dated as
agreed between the parties hereto.
(d) The parties are at liberty to challenge the decision
regarding valuation given in Reference in the District Court,
in accordance with law.
(e) The compromise & decision so arrived finally, should not be
treated as a precedent. In view of the above, petition shall
stand disposed of. No order as to cost.”
(v) Pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court, the
payment was made to the appellant on 17.11.1997 and the
possession of lands was handed over by the appellant. The
appellant thereafter submitted an application on 03.12.1997 to
respondent no. 2- Collector seeking reference to the District
Court. The respondent No. 2- Collector accordingly referred the
matter to the District Court on 18.12.1997.
(vi) The Reference Court after considering the issue of limitation
raised on behalf of the respondents in the said Reference, held
that the Reference filed with the Collector was within the period of
limitation as per the order of the High Court. The Reference Court
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, October 19, 2024
Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

further determined the amount of additional compensation to be

paid to the appellant-trust vide the award dated 07.03.2006.
(vii) The respondent no. 1- Committee, being aggrieved by the said
award preferred the First Appeals being 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of
2006 before the High Court, which came to be allowed vide the
impugned orders as stated herein above.
3. 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. According
to him, though the consent terms, more particularly, clause (c) thereof
was not happily worded, the High Court while disposing of the Writ
Petition vide the order dated 20.10.1997 had specifically directed the
Reference Court to determine the market value of the lands in question
as on 17.12.1994 as agreed between the parties, and therefore, the
respondents could not have raised the issue of limitation contained in
Section 18 of the Act. He further submitted that both the parties had to
act in terms of the order passed by the High Court based on the
consent terms, and therefore the respondent-Committee could not have
raised the issue of limitation under Section 18.
4. Per Contra, the learned senior Counsel Mr. Parag Tripathi
appearing for respondent no. 1- Committee pressing into service clause
(c) of the consent terms vehemently submitted that there being no
time limit mentioned in the said clause, it was required to be construed
that the appellant-trust had to make an application to the second
respondent under Section 18 of the said Act within four weeks from the
date of the order passed by the High Court i.e. from 20.10.1997 and
the appellant having made the application seeking reference on
03.12.1997 i.e. after four weeks of the order dated 20.10.1997, such an
application was clearly barred by limitation in view of the consent terms
as well as under Section 18 of the said Act.
5. Having carefully gone through the order dated 20.10.1997 passed
by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 607 of 1996 based on the
consent terms arrived at between the appellant-trust and the
respondent no. 1- Committee, and the award passed by the Reference
Court as also the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High
Court, 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Saturday, October 19, 2024
Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
6. 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. The High
Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 607 of 1996 had given
directions in terms of the consent terms, and both the parties were
expected to act accordingly. In view of said directions given by the
High Court, the issue of limitation contained in Section 18 of the Act
had clearly paled into insignificance, and the respondent could not have
raised such a plea before the Reference Court or before the High Court.
7. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition that in
view of the proviso to Section 18 of the said Act, every application to
the Collector seeking reference under Section 18 is required to be made
within the time limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 18. However,
in the instant case, the parties having entered into the consent terms
on 20.10.1997 after the award under Section 11 was made on
12.01.1996, and the respondent having specifically agreed to pay the
compensation awarded under Section 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, Nashik, 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 appellant-trust seeking reference to the
District Court, Nashik was beyond the period of limitation prescribed
under Section 18 or was not in consonance with the consent terms
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Saturday, October 19, 2024
Printed For: Abhixit Singh ASP
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

arrived at between the parties. Since the market value of the lands as
on 17.12.1994 which was the reckonable date agreed by the parties,
was required to be determined by the District Court, Nashik, making of
an application to the Collector seeking a Reference under Section 18
was a sheer procedural formality required to be followed by the
appellant. Though the consent terms and the directions of High Court
were silent as to within what period the appellant had to make such an
application, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are allowed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.