Arawali Power Co. Ltd. vs Raj Singh And Ors

-1-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
119
RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026

ARAWALI POWER COMPANY LTD.
…Appellant
Versus

RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS
…Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate,
Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocate,
Mr. Sartaj Singh Sudan, Advocate and
Mr. Saurabh Pathak, Advocate (through V.C.) for appellant

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana

*

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order
dated 17.07.2026 passed by , Jhajjar (for short
Ld. Additional District Judge
‘Reference Court’) whereby the reference petition filed by the respondent
has been allowed.
2. As per pleadings, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short
‘Collector’) passed an award dated 07.07.2008 whereby compensation for
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
the acquisition of land @ 16,00,000/- per acre was determined. The
₹
respondent filed reference petition on 20.08.2019. The matter was referred
to Court which vide award dated 17.07.2026 has enhanced compensation to
₹ 25,00,000/- per acre. As per appellant, application under Section 18 of 1894
Act was time barred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Award No.1 was
passed on 07.07.2008 whereby market value of the land in question was
determined. The respondent received compensation on the very same day,
thus, there was constructive notice to the respondent. There was no need to
issue notice under Section 12(2) of 1894 Act. The respondent was bound to
file application under Section 18 of 1894 Act within six months from
07.07.2008. The limitation period prescribed under Section 18 of 1894 Act
is sacrosanct and cannot be condoned. The only requirement is notice of
award which may be actual or constructive. Receipt of compensation
amounts to constructive as well as actual notice. The Reference Court has
not returned findings on the question of limitation and mechanically held
that the petition is not time barred.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent submits that
application under Section 18 of 1894 Act was filed within six months from
the date of award, however, the Collector forwarded the matter to Court after
the expiry of more than 10 years. The respondent cannot be deprived from
higher amount of compensation on account of lapse on the part of the
Collector. Question of determination of compensation qua land in question
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
has already been answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was duty of the
appellant to prove that there was delay in filing reference.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Supreme Court in Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra ,
(1979) 2 SCC 572 has held that it is one of the duties of the Reference Court
to examine whether application before Collector has been filed within
prescribed period of limitation. The Court has held: -
“ 22. The word “requires” in Section 18 of the Act implies
compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written
application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a
reference. The Collector is required to make a reference
under Section 18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The
first condition is that there shall be a written application by
a person interested who has not accepted the award. The
second condition is as to the nature of the objections which
may be taken, and the third condition is as to the time within
which the application shall be made. The power of the
Collector to make a reference under Section 18 is thus
circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, and one
condition is the condition regarding limitation to be found in
the proviso.
23. The conditions laid down in Section 18 are ‘matters of
substance and their observance is a condition precedent to
the Collector's power of reference, as rightly observed by
Chandavarkar, J., in re Land Acquisition Act. We are
inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions,
particularly the one regarding limitation, are the conditions
subject to which the power of the Collector to make the
reference exists. It must accordingly be held that the making
of an application for reference within the time prescribed by
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
proviso to Section 18 sub-section (2) is a sine qua non for a
valid reference by the Collector.
24. From these considerations, it follows that the court
functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special
jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it
by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the
conditions laid down therein so as to give the court
jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of these principles,
we would be extremely reluctant to accept the statement of
law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Karim
case. ”


7. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer ,
1961 SCC OnLine SC 140, Supreme Court has held that actual or
constructive knowledge of Award is necessary. Where award is passed in the
absence of person interested, limitation period of six months cannot be
counted from the date of award and it should be counted from the date of
knowledge to the aggrieved party. Mere passing of Award and filing in the
office of Collector is not sufficient. Award in terms of Section 12(2) must be
communicated to the affected party because his rights are affected. The
Court has held: -
“ 6. There is yet another point which leads to the same
conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative
decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation
of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said
decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the
property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect
persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision
should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of
the party affected by such a decision, either actual or
constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
before the decision can be brought into force. Thus
considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in
the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even
filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the
communication of the said award to the party concerned
either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced
in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it
can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the
pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party
and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously
announced the award is said to be communicated to the said
party even if the said party is not actually present on the date
of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date
of its pronouncement, an award is pronounced and a party is
not present the award can be said to be made when it is
communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party
affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an
essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the
expression “the date of the award” used in the proviso must
mean the date when the award is either communicated to the
party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In
our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe
the words “from the date of the Collector's award” used in
the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
7. In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under
Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give
immediate notice of the award to the persons interested as
are not present personally or by their representatives when
the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the
necessity of the communication of the award to the party
concerned. The legislature recognised that the making of the
award under Section 11 followed by its filing under Section
12(1) would not meet the requirements of justice before
bringing the award into force. It thought that the
communication of the award to the party concerned was also
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory words an
obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the
award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant
that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the
award immediately after making it. This provision lends
support to the view which we have taken about the
construction of the expression “from the date of the
Collector's award” in the proviso to Section 18. It is because
communication of the order is regarded by the legislature as
necessary that Section 12(2) has imposed an obligation on
the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read
in the light of this statutory requirement it tends to show that
the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause
would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very
curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge
his obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to
make ineffective the right of the party to make an application
under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been
intended by the legislature.”

8. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. , (2010) 3 SCC 545, Supreme
Court has held that limitation period of six months commences from the date
of knowledge where landowner was not present at the time of passing
Award. Collector has to establish that there was actual or constructive
knowledge of award to the claimant. The court has held that actual or
constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by
the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the
compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar / panchnama /proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land
in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement
on oath or evidence. The Court has held: -
“ 30. When a person interested makes an application for
reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the
date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he
(or his representative) was not present when the award was
made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the
contents of the award during a period of six months prior to
the filing the application for reference. This onus is
discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not
expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is
discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the
Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person
interested was present either in person or through his
representative when the award was made, or that he had
received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he
had knowledge of the contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the
award can be established by the Collector by proving that the
person interested had received or drawn the compensation
amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of
the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed
a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the
making of the award in any document or in statement on oath
or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of
the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee
being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with
delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive
knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the
Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not
have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are
compelling circumstances not to do so.”
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)

9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that respondent was
having notice of award dated 07.07.2008. He received compensation on
07.07.2008, thus, for all intents and purposes the award came into his notice
and he was bound to file reference, if any, within six months from
07.07.2008. The Reference Court has not examined date of filing application
before the Collector and casually adjudicated the issue in favour of the
respondent. The findings recorded by the Reference Court qua issue in
question read as: -
“15. Onus to prove these issues upon the respondents. The
outcome of these issues have been dependent upon the
adjudication on the aspect of issue Nos.1 & 2. This Tribunal
has adjudicated under issue Nos.1 & 2 that the petitioner is
entitled for enhancement of compensation amount to the tune
of the rates granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide
judgment Ex.P6. Further the right in favour of petitioners is
continuous and recurring. Hence, the petitioners have locus-
standi to file the present petition, the petition is not time
barred and is also maintainable, hence, all these issues are
decided in favour of the petitioners and against the
respondents.”

10. The Reference Court has failed to find out date of filing
application before the Collector though there was specific objection of the
Collector that application has been filed after more than 10 years. There
might be possibility of non-forwarding of reference to Court at the earliest,
however, it seems strange that it was forwarded after more than 11 years.
The possibility of manipulation of record cannot be ruled out. The Reference
Court is bound to examine aforesaid aspect. It is a matter of public
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-9-

RFA-1488-2026 (O&M)
exchequer. The Court has no authority to condone delay once it is established
that landowner was having constructive or actual notice of the award. It was
desirable for the Reference Court to call for the original record of the
Collector and thereafter determine the issue especially when there is gap of
11 years between the date of award and filing of reference. The matter needs
to be re-examined, thus, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the appeal
by way of remand on the question of limitation period.
11. In the backdrop, appeal is allowed by way of remand qua
question of limitation period in filing application before the Collector under
Section 18 of 1894 Act.
12. Both the parties at the first instance would appear before the
Reference Court on 19.09.2026 and thereafter as directed by the said Court.
The parties would be at liberty to lead evidence in support of their claim. The
Reference Court is requested to pass fresh order expeditiously and preferably
within 6 months from today.
13. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.09.2026
SDK

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document