Limitation for seeking a land acquisition reference begins upon communication of the award’s essential contents.

The appellants’ land situated at Village Devdanti was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna in 1973–74, and the Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 12 March 1975.

The original claimant filed objections under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12 September 1989, approximately 5,299 days after the award. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter made a reference to the Civil Court only in 2024, after a further delay of approximately 12,664 days.

The Reference Court dismissed Land Reference Case No. 177 of 2024 as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

In appeal, the appellants contended that the award had not been communicated to them as required under Section 12(2) of the Act and relied on a Coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits in similar circumstances.

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 present or represented when the award was made; the limitation for seeking a reference cannot ordinarily begin until the award is actually or constructively communicated.

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” means the date on which the award is communicated or becomes known, actually or constructively, to the affected party.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, for the principle that knowledge must extend to the essential contents of the award, and on Premji Nathu, which emphasises that a copy of the award should accompany the notice under Section 12(2) to enable an effective application under Section 18.

The decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai and Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector were followed for the proposition that mere intimation of the award is insufficient; the Collector must communicate its essential contents.

Although the objections were filed nearly fourteen years after the award and the reference was made after substantial delay, the record did not show that notice under Section 12(2), or the essential contents of the award, had ever been served on or received by the claimants.

Applying the principle that limitation under Section 18 cannot be mechanically calculated from the date on which the award was signed or made in the Collector’s office, the Court held that non-compliance with the statutory duty of communication could not deprive the claimants of their right to seek a reference.

Dismissal solely on limitation, without adjudicating the compensation claim on merits, would therefore cause injustice.

At the same time, the Court balanced the equities by directing that the claimants would not receive interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from the award dated 12 March 1975 until the filing of objections on 12 September 1989.

The Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 dismissing Land Reference Case No. 177 of 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the reference was restored and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between 12 March 1975 and 12 September 1989.

One appellant was directed to file an affidavit undertaking this restriction, which the Registry was directed to place on record.