Failure to serve Section 12(2) notice prevents dismissal of land acquisition reference on grounds of limitation.

The Appellants (original claimants) challenged a common award dated October 6, 2012, passed by the 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar

The lands in Virpur village were compulsorily acquired for the construction of a branch canal for the UND Irrigation Project

The Reference Court rejected the claimants' applications for additional compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solely on the grounds that the references were barred by limitation

The claimants contended that since they were not served with the mandatory notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the period of limitation should not have been calculated mechanically from the date of the award or payment

1. Whether a reference under Section 18 can be dismissed on the grounds of limitation if the mandatory notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was not served on the claimants.

2. Whether the act of accepting compensation without a formal protest disentitles a claimant from seeking enhancement of compensation through a reference.

Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that the Collector give immediate notice of the award to interested persons not present at the time of the award

the date of the award for limitation purposes means the date the award is communicated to or actually/constructively known by the party as established in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1961 SC 1500)

filing a reference application itself manifests an intention to protest, rendering the acceptance of compensation a "protest implied" as held in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 4 SCC 67]

The High Court noted that the Reference Court had actually believed the Appellants’ contention regarding the non-service of notice under Section 12(2), yet erroneously dismissed the references because they were not filed within six months of receiving compensation

The Court reasoned that under the scheme of the Act, an award is merely an "offer" by the Government; therefore, limitation cannot begin until the essential contents of that offer are formally communicated to the claimant

The Court found that failure by the Collector to discharge the statutory obligation under Section 12(2) cannot be used to make the claimant's right under Section 18 ineffective

Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of its "essential contents," not just the fact of its existence

Consequently, because the statutory service requirements were not met, the references could not be deemed barred by limitation

It held that in the absence of satisfying the notice provisions of Section 12(2), the references were not barred by limitation, and the acceptance of compensation does not waive the right to seek enhancement

The Court remanded the matters to the Reference Court for a fresh decision on the merits, directing that the cases be resolved within three months