Gujarat High Court revives 1975 land acquisition compensation claim despite 36-year delay, citing lack of award notice

The appellant’s land at Village Rambhoda was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna in 1973–1974, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16 September 1975.

The claimant filed objections seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 30 November 1988, approximately 4,833 days after the award. The reference was forwarded to the Reference Court only in 2024, after approximately 12,942 days.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed the reference as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

The claimant challenged that order before the High Court, relying on a Coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits where the award had not been duly communicated.

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

2. Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the Reference Court for adjudication on merits, subject to denial of interest for the period of delay attributable to the claimant?

The Court applied Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 12(2) obliges 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; limitation for seeking a reference cannot ordinarily operate without actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

Relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Court held that the “date of the award” is the date when the award is communicated to, or known by, the affected person, and not merely the date on which it is signed or filed.

It also relied on State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, and the decisions in Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector and Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai, which establish that knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award.

Further, Premji Nathu was relied upon for the principle that a copy of the award should accompany the notice under Section 12(2) to enable an effective application under Section 18.

The High Court found that the record did not show issuance or receipt of a notice communicating the award or its essential contents to the claimant.

Applying the principles in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh and the related authorities, the Court held that the claimant’s right to seek a reference could not be defeated solely by mechanically computing limitation from the date of the award. Dismissal on limitation without examining the absence of statutory communication would cause injustice, particularly because the acquisition was compulsory and the claimant sought determination of fair compensation.

However, to balance the equities arising from the claimant’s delay in filing objections, the Court directed that no interest on any enhanced compensation would be payable for the period between the award dated 16 September 1975 and the filing of objections on 30 November 1988.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 and restored the land reference case to its original file for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 16 September 1975 to 30 November 1988, and one appellant was directed to file an affidavit undertaking to that effect.

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