The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chote Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
1 FA-463-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 463 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHOTE SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kushwaha - GA for the appellants/State.
ORDER
I.A.No.1318/2022, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. The award which is impugned in this appeal was passed on
25/11/2021. The present appeal has been filed on 26/03/2022. Therefore, in
view the decision of the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
No.3/2020 [IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION],
there is no delay in filing of the present appeal.
3. Therefore, this is appeal is filed within limitation. The I.A.
No.1318/2022 is accordingly disposed of as not required.
4. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC read with Section 74 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been filed by appellants
challenging the award dated 25/11/2021 passed by the Eleventh District
Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 42/2018.
5. The impugned award has been challenged by appellants primarily
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
2 FA-463-2022
on three grounds. Firstly, the reference made by respondents was barred by

limitation. Secondly, after having received the amount of compensation
awarded by Land Acquisition Officer without any protest, the respondents
could not have raised demand for enhancement of amount. Thirdly, the lower
Court erred in granting compensation treating the respondents' land as
irrigated.
6. During course of arguments, it has come to the notice that there
were more than 50 similar appeals which have been disposed of by this
Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Lokendra Singh (F.A. No.264/2021) has decided the first issue in similar
circumstances. Therefore, this appeal also deserves to be considered in
similar terms.
7. Dealing with the issue of limitation, this Court by order dated
23.06.2025 passed in F.A. No.264/2021 has held as under:-
"8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether reference was barred by time
9. Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under :
"18. Reference to Court.—(1) Any person interested
who has not accepted the award may, by written
application to the Collector, require that the matter be
referred by the Collector for the determination of the
Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of
the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons
to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken: Provided that every
such application shall be made,—
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
3 FA-463-2022
(a) if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his
award, within six weeks from the date of the
Collector s award;
‟
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section
(2); or within six months from the date of the
Collector s award, whichever period shall first expire.
‟
10. Admittedly, the respondent was not present at the time of
passing of award, therefore, Section 18(2)(i) of Land Acquisition
Act, would not apply.
11. Now, the next question for consideration is that whether any
notice was ever given by Collector under Section 12(2) of Land
Acquisition Act or not?
12. The respondent, in para 3 of his application filed under Section
18 of Land Acquisition Act, had specifically pleaded that no
notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was given.
The appellants did not deny this fact in their written statement. A
solitary stand was taken by the appellants that the respondent was
aware of the award from the date of its pronouncement. The
respondent in his affidavit filed under Order 18 rule 4 CPC had
specifically stated that no notice under Section 12 of Land
Acquisition Act was given. The respondent has examined
Awadhesh Pratap Singh Yadav who has stated that information
regarding passing of award was given by Kotwar by beat of drum.
13. First of all, it is made clear that no defence was taken by the
appellants in their written statement, that any public notice was
given to the villagers by Kotwar by beat of drums. However, the
moot question for consideration is that whether general notice by
beat of drums can be said to be sufficient compliance of Section
12(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 or not?
14. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The Supreme
Court in the case of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat, reported in

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
4 FA-463-2022
(2012) 5 SCC 250 has held as under:
15. What needs to be emphasised is that along with the notice
issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, the landowner who is not
present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of
making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he
may effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek
reference to the court.
16. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, this
Court was called upon to decide whether the expression “date of
award” is to be interpreted with reference to the time when the
award is signed by the Collector or from the date the affected party
comes to know about the same and held as under: (AIR pp. 1503-
04, paras 5-6)

“5. … Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is
in law no more than an offer made on behalf of the
Government to the owner of the property then the
making of the award as properly understood must
involve the communication of the offer to the party
concerned. That is the normal requirement under the
contract law and its applicability to cases of award
made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded.
Thus considered the date of the award cannot be
determined solely by reference to the time when the
award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in
his office; it must involve the consideration of the
question as to when it was known to the party
concerned either actually or constructively. If that be
the true position then the literal and mechanical
construction of the words „the date of the award ‟
occurring in the relevant section would not be
appropriate.
6. There is yet another point which leads to the same
conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
5 FA-463-2022
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 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 fair play 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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
6 FA-463-2022
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, the principle laid
down in Harish Chandra case was reiterated and it was held: (AIR
p. 1607, para 5)

“5. … It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision
in Harish Chandra case is that the party affected by the
award must know it, actually or constructively, and the
period of six months will run from the date of that
knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not
mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has
been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential
contents of the award. These contents may be known
either actually or constructively. If the award is
communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the
Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge
of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not.
Similarly when a party is present in court either
personally or through his representative when the award
is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he
knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the
scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the
award must mean knowledge of the essential contents
of the award.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. this Court interpreted Section
18 and laid down the following propositions: (SCC pp. 553-54,
para 28)
“(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to
make the application within six weeks from the date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
7 FA-463-2022
the Collector ‟ s award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the
person interested (or his authorised representative), he
has to make the application seeking reference within six
weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was
not present when the award is made, and if he does not
receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the
Collector, he has to make the application within six
months of the date on which he actually or
constructively came to know about the contents of the
award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks
from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim
the benefit of the provision for six months for making
the application on the ground that the date of receipt of
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of
knowledge of the contents of the award.”
19. The Court in Bhagwan Das then held: (SCC p. 554, paras 30-
31)

“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
8 FA-463-2022
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.”


21. A careful reading of the averments contained in
Para 2 of the application filed by the appellant under
Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the
Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon him on
22-2-1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified
copy of the award and filed application dated 8-4-1985
for making a reference to the Court. This implies that
the copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant
along with the notice and without that he could not have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
9 FA-463-2022
effectively made an application for seeking reference.
22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence
was produced before the Reference Court to show that
the copy of the award was sent to the appellant along
with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3,
this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference
Court which mechanically concluded that the
application filed on 8-4- 1985 was beyond the time
specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge
of the High Court also committed serious error by
approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit
without considering the fact that the notice issued by the
Collector under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by
a copy of the award which was essential for effective
exercise of right vested in the appellant to seek
reference under Section 18(1).
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade
Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 8 SCC 266 has also
relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Premji Nathu
(Supra).
16. Thus, it is clear that no notice under Section 12(2) of Land
Acquisition Act was ever served upon the respondent and no copy
of the award was ever supplied to the respondent, therefore, a
specific pleading was made by the respondent, that when he came
to know about passing of award, then on 14-72014, he filed an
application for supply of certified copy and certified copy was
supplied on 1-8-2014 and according to the record, the application
under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was filed before the
LAO on 23-8-2014 and as per endorsement made on the
application, the Collector directed for taking action on 22-12-
2014.
17. Now the only question for consideration is that whether
application was filed within a period of six months from the date

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
10 FA-463-2022
of the Collector ‟ s award or not?
18. The moot question for consideration is that whether narrow
interpretation is 4 to be given to the words “from the date of the
Collector ‟ s award or the date of knowledge of award would also
mean from the date of the Collector ‟ s award?
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of
U.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 has held as under :

25. Invariably, the land-loser is required to make an
application under Section 18 of the Act to get the
market value as compensation. The land-loser does not
get a right to seek reference to the civil court unless the
award is made. This means that he can make an
application seeking reference only when he knows that
an award has been made.
26. If the words six months from the “date of the
Collector ‟ s award” should be literally interpreted as
referring to the date of the award and not the date of
knowledge of the award, it will lead to unjust and
absurd results. For example, the Collector may choose
to make an award but not to issue any notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or
oversight or due to any ulterior reasons. Or he may send
a notice but may not bother to ensure that it is served on
the landowner as required under Section 45 of the Act.
If the words “date of the Collector ‟ s award” are
literally interpreted, the effect would be that on the
expiry of six months from the date of award, even
though the claimant had no notice of the award, he
would lose the right to seek a reference. That will lead
to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between
those who are notified of the award and those who are
not notified of the award.
27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
11 FA-463-2022
reasonable and nondiscriminatory, it will run the risk of
being branded as being violative of Article 14 as also
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. To avoid
such consequences, the words “date of the Collector ‟ s
award” occurring in proviso (b) to Section 18 requires
to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the
essential contents of the award, and not the actual date
of the Collector ‟ s award.
28. The following position therefore emerges from the
interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to
make the application within six weeks from the date of
the Collector ‟ s award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the
person interested (or his authorised representative), he
has to make the application seeking reference within six
weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was
not present when the award is made, and if he does not
receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the
Collector, he has to make the application within six
months of the date on which he actually or
constructively came to know about the contents of the
award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks
from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim
the benefit of the provision for six months for making
the application on the ground that the date of receipt of
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of
knowledge of the contents of the award.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
12 FA-463-2022
29. A person who fails to make an application for
reference within the time prescribed is not without
remedy. It is open to him to make an application under
Section 28-A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the
court in respect of the other lands covered by the same
acquisition notification, if there is an increase. Be that
as it may.
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
13 FA-463-2022
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. 20.
Thus the words from the date of the Collector ‟ s award
would also include from the date of knowledge.
21. In the present case, it was specifically pleaded by the
respondent, that after getting information of award, an application
was filed on 14-7-2014 for supply of certified copy which was
received on 1-4-2014 and as per the record, the application under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was filed before LAO on 23-
8-2014 and on 22-12-2014, an endorsement was made by
Collector to take necessary action. Thus, it is held that the
application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition was filed within
six months from the date of knowledge of impugned award,
therefore, the reference is held to be within the period of
limitation."

8. In the case in hand also, the impugned award was passed by Land
Acquisition Officer on 29.12.2016. The respondents made a specific
averment that they were not present before Collector at the time of passing of
award. In para 16 of its award, the Court below has held that there is nothing
on record to show that the respondents were present before Collector at the
time of passing of award and/or the information in this regard was furnished
to respondents by the office of Collector. In the present appeal also, there is
no material pointed out by learned Govt. Advocate in this regard. Therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25928
14 FA-463-2022
the Court below did not commit any mistake in holding the reference

application within limitation.
9. The second issue about locus of respondents to file reference
application after having received the amount of compensation awarded by
Land Acquisition Officer. However, this objection does not appear to have
been raised before this reference Court. Therefore, in absence of any
foundation and evidence led by respondents, the same cannot be allowed to
be raised at appellate stage.
10. Regarding grant of compensation treating the land of respondents
as irrigated, the Court below has relied upon revenue record marked as Ex.
P/1 to P/10 wherein the respondents' land is recorded as irrigated. The
appellants have not pointed out any material to the contrary. Therefore, this
part of impugned award is also found to be just and proper.
11. The appeal filed by appellants is thus found to be without any
substance. The same is accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Anil*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
10:49:40 AM