Absence of Section 12(2) notice extends limitation for reference to date of actual knowledge of award.

The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Gwalior, acquired 13.146 hectares of land in Village Aroli for the construction of the Harsi High Level Canal, passing an award on 05.05.2012

Dissatisfied with the compensation, the respondents/claimants applied for enhancement before the Collector on 01.06.2020. The Collector referred the matter to the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19.01.2022

The Reference Court (Fifth District Judge, Gwalior) enhanced the compensation via an award dated 30.06.2022

The State appealed this enhancement, alleging the reference was barred by limitation and that claimants were estopped from seeking enhancement after accepting the original amount

1. Whether the reference application filed by the respondents/claimants before the Reference Court was barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

2. Whether the claimants, having accepted the original compensation, were estopped from seeking enhancement under the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which prescribes a limitation period of six weeks from the award if the party is present, or six months from the date of the award/knowledge in other cases

Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. (2010), which interpreted "date of the award" to mean the "date of knowledge" of the award's essential contents to satisfy the requirements of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution

Section 31(2) of the Act, which bars reference for those who receive compensation without "protest," and invoked Mullu v. Land Acquisition Officer (1966), holding that for illiterate claimants, the absence of a "no-protest" note by the LAO implies the payment was received under protest

The Court noted that the respondents were not present when the award was passed on 05.05.2012

Since the State failed to produce evidence that a notice under Section 12(2) was served or that the claimants had actual knowledge of the award’s contents prior to their application, the limitation period commenced only from the date of knowledge

Following the reasoning in F.A. No. 264 of 2021, the court found that the State failed to rebut the claimants' assertion that they received the amount under protest

The court further observed that for such claimants, the burden lies on the State to prove the absence of protest, which it failed to do

Consequently, the issues were deemed squarely covered by previous judgments delivered in relation to the same acquisition proceedings

The reference was maintainable as the compensation was deemed received under protest

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. Additionally, I.A. No. 2516/2024 for condonation of a 587-day delay in filing the State's appeal was allowed in the interest of justice