Failure to serve Section 12(2) notice does not extinguish the claimant’s right to seek reference.

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

The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 28 November 1977.

The original claimant filed objections under the Land Acquisition Act on 12 January 1989, approximately 4,067 days after the award.

The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter made a reference to the Reference Court only in 2024, approximately 12,904 days later.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 174 of 2024 as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

The claimants challenged that dismissal before the Gujarat High Court.

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

Under Section 12(2), the Collector must immediately communicate the award, including its essential contents, to interested persons who were not present when it was made; mere knowledge that an award exists is insufficient.

Under Section 18, limitation begins upon actual or constructive knowledge of the award and its essential contents, rather than mechanically from the date on which the Collector signed the award.

The Court relied on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, holding that an award must be communicated to the affected party before it can operate for limitation purposes.

State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, holding that knowledge of an award means knowledge of its essential contents.

Premji Nathu, which emphasised that a person not served with a Section 12(2) notice must be supplied the relevant particulars or a copy of the award to effectively exercise the right to seek a reference.

The Court also followed the coordinate Bench decision in First Appeal No. 248 of 2026 and the Division Bench principles referred to therein.

The Reference Court treated the reference as barred solely because the objections were filed long after the 1977 award and the reference was forwarded in 2024.

However, the record did not show that the Collector had issued, or that the claimant had received, notice under Section 12(2), nor that the essential contents of the award had otherwise been communicated.

Applying Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh, Qaisar Jehan Begum, and Premji Nathu, the High Court held that limitation could not be determined by a literal calculation from the date of the award when the statutory communication requirement was unproved.

Dismissal on limitation alone, without examining the claim for enhanced compensation on merits, would unjustly deprive the claimants of their statutory right arising from compulsory acquisition.

To balance the equities arising from the substantial delay, the Court directed that the claimants would not receive interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 28 November 1977 to 12 January 1989.

The order dated 1 October 2024 dismissing Land Reference Case No. 174 of 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the reference was restored and remanded to the concerned Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 28 November 1977, the date of the award, to 12 January 1989, the date of filing objections.

One appellant was directed to file an affidavit accepting that restriction, and the record and proceedings were ordered to be returned to the Reference Court.