Failure to serve Section 12(2) notice prevents limitation from defeating a land acquisition reference.

The appellants’ land situated at Village Devdanti was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna during 1973–1974.

The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 28 November 1977. The original claimant filed objections seeking a reference on 12 January 1989, approximately 4,067 days after the award.

The reference was forwarded to the Reference Court only in 2024, after approximately 12,904 days.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 173 of 2024 on 1 October 2024 as time-barred.

The landowners challenged that dismissal before the Gujarat High Court.

Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was liable to be dismissed as time-barred when the record did not establish that the award or its essential contents had been communicated to the claimants under Section 12(2) of the Act?

Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the Reference Court for determination on merits, and, if so, whether the claimants were entitled to interest for the period preceding the filing of their objections?

Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, limitation for seeking a reference begins when the award is communicated to, or becomes known—actually or constructively—to the person interested; the mere date on which the Collector signs or files the award is not necessarily determinative.

Section 12(2) obliges the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to interested persons who were not present when it was made, including communication of its essential contents.

The Court relied on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, which held that knowledge or communication of the award is essential before limitation can operate; State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, which held that knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award; Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector and Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai, which affirmed the Collector’s duty to communicate the award; and Premji Nathu, which explained the distinction between limitation following notice under Section 12(2) and limitation where such notice was not received.

The Reference Court dismissed the claim solely on the basis of the substantial delay in filing and forwarding the reference.

However, the High Court found that the record did not show that notice of the award, or its essential contents, had been issued to or received by the claimants.

Applying the principles that limitation under Section 18 cannot effectively begin against a landowner without actual or constructive knowledge of the award, the Court held that the absence of Section 12(2) communication required reconsideration of the matter on merits.

At the same time, to preserve equitable balance despite the claimants’ delay, the Court denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from the award dated 28 November 1977 until the filing of objections on 12 January 1989.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 and restored Land Reference Case No. 173 of 2024 to its original file.

The matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were held not entitled to interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 28 November 1977 to 12 January 1989, and one appellant was directed to file an affidavit undertaking this position.

The record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the concerned court.