Absence of Section 12(2) notice precludes dismissal of a land acquisition reference solely on limitation.

The appellants’ land at Village Devdanti was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna in 1973–74.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 12 March 1975.

The original claimants subsequently filed objections seeking a reference under the Land Acquisition Act on 12 September 1989, approximately 5,299 days after the award.

The reference was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer only in 2024, after approximately 12,664 days.

The Reference Court dismissed Land Reference Case No. 184 of 2024 on 1 October 2024, holding it to be time-barred.

The claimants challenged that dismissal before the High Court and relied upon a coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits in comparable circumstances.

Whether the reference could be dismissed as time-barred solely on the basis that the objections were filed long after the date on which the award was made, in the absence of proof that the award or its essential contents had been communicated to the claimants?

Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the Reference Court for adjudication on merits, and whether any limitation-related delay should affect the claimants’ entitlement to interest on any enhanced compensation?

The Court applied Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Section 12(2) obligates the Collector to give immediate notice of the award, including its essential contents, to interested persons who were not present when the award was made; the limitation period for seeking a reference under Section 18 is therefore ordinarily computed from actual or constructive knowledge of the award and its essential contents, rather than mechanically from the date on which the Collector signed the award.

Relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Court held that an award becomes operative against the affected person upon communication or knowledge, actual or constructive.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, for the principle that mere knowledge of the existence of an award is insufficient; knowledge must extend to its essential contents.

The Court also relied on Premji Nathu for the requirement that the landowner should ordinarily be supplied with a copy of the award to effectively exercise the right of reference.

Although the objections were filed in 1989 and the reference was made in 2024, the record did not show that notice of the award had been issued to, or received by, the claimants.

In light of Sections 12(2) and 18, and the authorities holding that limitation begins upon communication or knowledge of the essential contents of the award, the High Court found that dismissal solely on limitation would unjustly deprive the claimants of their statutory right to seek determination of proper compensation.

The Court therefore accepted the coordinate Bench’s approach and held that the reference should be decided afresh on merits.

To balance the equities arising from the delay, it directed that the claimants would not receive interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 12 March 1975, the date of the award, to 12 September 1989, the date of filing the objections.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 and restored Land Reference Case No. 184 of 2024 to its original file for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were directed to file an affidavit recording that they would not claim interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between 12 March 1975 and 12 September 1989.

The record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Reference Court, and the Registry was directed to retain the affidavit on the appeal record.