In absence of Section 12(2) notice, a land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed as time-barred.

The appellants’ predecessor owned land situated at Village Rambhoda, which was acquired in 1973–74 for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed the acquisition award on 16 September 1975.

The original claimant filed objections seeking a reference on 30 November 1988, approximately 4,833 days after the award.

The reference was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer only in 2024, after an alleged delay of approximately 12,942 days.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 186 of 2024 on 1 October 2024 as time-barred.

In appeal, the claimants contended that there was no evidence that the award or its essential contents had been communicated to them and relied on a coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits in similar circumstances.

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 communication of the award or its essential contents to the claimants.

Whether the matter should be remanded to the Reference Court for adjudication on merits despite the delay in filing the objections and making the reference.

Whether the claimants could be granted interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between the award and the filing of objections.

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 personally or representatively present when the award was made; the limitation for seeking a reference must therefore be computed from actual or constructive knowledge of the award and its essential contents, rather than mechanically from the date on which the award was signed.

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 claimant upon communication or knowledge, actual or constructive.

It further relied on State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, and the Gujarat decisions in Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector and Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai, which establish 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, which explains the statutory distinction between limitation after receipt of a Section 12(2) notice and limitation where no such notice is received, and emphasises that a copy of the award should be supplied to enable an effective reference.

The Reference Court had treated the dates of the award and the eventual reference as conclusively establishing limitation.

However, the High Court found that the record did not show issuance or receipt of a Section 12(2) notice communicating the award and its essential contents to the claimants.

Applying Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh and the subsequent authorities, the Court held that limitation could not be applied through a literal or mechanical calculation from 16 September 1975 without first determining when the claimants acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

Since the statutory obligation to communicate the award had not been demonstrated, dismissal solely on limitation would unjustly deprive the claimants of their statutory right to seek determination of proper compensation.

Nevertheless, to balance the equities arising from the claimants’ delayed objections, the Court denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from the date of the award until the filing of objections.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 and restored Land Reference Case No. 186 of 2024 to its original file for fresh adjudication on merits.

The matter was remanded to the concerned Reference Court for expeditious consideration.

The claimants were held not entitled to interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 16 September 1975 to 30 November 1988.

One appellant was directed to file an affidavit recording this undertaking, and the Registry was directed to place it on the record.