Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Orders Reference Under Section 18

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on January 30, 2018, ruled on a case concerning the rejection of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case, Shahid Jamal & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., involved a challenge to the refusal of enhanced compensation by the High Court on grounds of delay in filing the application. The Supreme Court held that the reference request was filed within the prescribed time and directed the authorities to make a reference under Section 18.

Background of the Case

The case arose when the appellants, Shahid Jamal and another, had their land acquired under a government project in Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on March 31, 1999, determining compensation for the acquired land. The appellants received the compensation under protest on April 7, 1999, and subsequently sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.

The appellants claimed that they were not provided with a certified copy of the award, which delayed their ability to file detailed objections. Their first reference request was submitted on July 24, 1999, within the statutory period. However, a subsequent reference request, which included detailed grounds, was submitted on December 30, 1999, beyond the six-month limit.

The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that the reference application was time-barred since the detailed request was filed after six months. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Shahid Jamal & Anr.)

The appellants contended that:

• Their reference application of July 24, 1999, was within the six-month period prescribed by Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
• The authorities failed to provide a certified copy of the award, which prevented them from furnishing detailed objections at the time of their initial application.
• The December 30, 1999, application was merely an elaboration of the earlier reference request and should not be treated as a fresh application.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.)

The State countered that:

• The request under Section 18 must contain specific grounds for enhancement, which were absent in the July 24, 1999, application.
• The application containing grounds was submitted on December 30, 1999, beyond the statutory limit of six months from the date of compensation payment.
• The rejection of the reference by the authorities was legally justified as the appellants failed to comply with procedural requirements.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the factual matrix and made key observations:

• “The request made by the appellants on July 24, 1999, explicitly sought a reference under Section 18. This must be treated as a proper reference application.”
• “The appellants had received compensation under protest, which preserved their right to seek an enhancement.”
• “The authorities failed to provide a certified copy of the award in a timely manner, which contributed to the delay in submitting detailed objections.”
• “The December 30, 1999, application was not a fresh reference request but rather a supplementary statement elaborating the grounds for enhancement.”

Referring to the fundamental principles of land acquisition law, the Court held:

• “A reference application should not be rejected solely on technical grounds when a valid request was made within the statutory period.”
• “The authorities must ensure that affected landowners are provided with all necessary documents to enable them to file their claims effectively.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that:

• The application dated July 24, 1999, should be treated as a valid reference request under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
• The Land Acquisition Collector must make a reference to the appropriate authority within four weeks.
• The Reference Court must dispose of the case within three months of receiving the reference.
• The appellants shall not be entitled to interest on any enhancement for the period between April 7, 1999 (the date of compensation receipt), and June 29, 2012 (the date of filing the special leave petition).

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that technicalities should not override substantive justice in land acquisition matters. The judgment safeguards the rights of landowners by ensuring that genuine claims for enhanced compensation are not rejected due to procedural lapses.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shahid Jamal & Anr. vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-01-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category