Limitation under Section 18 begins upon actual or constructive knowledge of the acquisition award.

The State acquired land situated in the revenue estates of Shergarh, Dhakola, Jawahargarh and Bihta, District Ambala, for construction of an effluent channel and establishment of Growth Centre, Phase-II, of HSIIDC. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued on 28 October 2013 and 27 October 2014, respectively.

The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 21 October 2016, determining different market values for the acquired land depending on its location and depth.

The landowners sought references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, contending that the compensation was inadequate. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, by a common award dated 28 February 2025, enhanced the applicable multiplying factor from 1 to 1.25 for land in Dhakola and Jawahargarh, and to 1.5 for land in Bihta and Shergarh.

HSIIDC challenged the enhancement, while certain landowners filed appeals and cross-objections seeking further relief.

HSIIDC argued that several reference applications were barred by limitation and that the 2018 notification prescribing the multiplier could not apply because the Section 4 notification and Collector’s award predated it. The landowners contended that their applications were filed within limitation from the date of actual knowledge of the award and that any delay resulted from the Collector’s failure to promptly forward the applications.

1. Whether the reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were barred by limitation where notice of the Collector’s award under Section 12(2) had not been served and actual or constructive knowledge was disputed?

2. Whether the notification prescribing the enhanced multiplying factor issued in 2018 could be applied despite the Section 4 notification and the Collector’s award having been issued before that notification?

3. Whether the Authority had erred in enhancing the multiplying factor for the acquired land in the four villages?

4. Whether the parties were entitled to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage?

The Court applied Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, governing appeals, along with Sections 4, 6, 11, 12(2), 18 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Under Section 18, limitation begins only when the person interested has actual or constructive knowledge of the award; mere making or filing of the award is insufficient where statutory notice under Section 12(2) has not been served. Relying on Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140, the Court held that communication or knowledge of the award is an essential requirement before limitation can commence.

Relying on Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545, it held that the Collector bears the burden of proving actual or constructive knowledge once the claimant asserts absence of notice and knowledge; such knowledge may be established through receipt of compensation, participation in possession proceedings, challenge to the award, or acknowledgment of the award.

Section 28A reflects the principle that similarly situated landowners should receive re-determined compensation on the basis of a Court’s enhanced award.

The Court also followed its earlier decision in Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Jamila, which had held that the 2018 notification prescribing the multiplier applied even where the Section 4 notification or award predated the notification.

The Court examined the original record and found that many applications under Section 18 had admittedly been filed within the prescribed period, while the Collector had failed to establish timely service of notice under Section 12(2) or actual or constructive knowledge of the award in the disputed cases.

Applying Harish Chandra Raj Singh and Bhagwan Das, the Court held that limitation could not mechanically be computed from the date of the award in the absence of proof that the landowners knew of its contents.

The Court further observed that applications filed during the pendency of valid references could, in substance, be considered consistently with the object of Section 28A, namely, securing equal and just compensation for similarly situated landowners.

On the multiplier, HSIIDC conceded that the issue had already been settled in Jamila. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Authority’s application of the 2018 notification and the enhanced factors of 1.25 for Dhakola and Jawahargarh and 1.5 for Bihta and Shergarh.

The landowners were unable to demonstrate any error in the basic market values determined by the Collector and upheld by the Authority. Consequently, neither the HSIIDC appeals nor the landowners’ appeals and cross-objections disclosed grounds for interference.

It further held that the 2018 notification prescribing the enhanced multiplier was applicable, and that the Authority correctly applied multiplying factors of 1.25 and 1.5 to the specified villages.

All HSIIDC appeals, landowners’ appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

Any delay in filing the appeals was condoned by consent, but the appellants were denied interest for the delayed period.

Applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence were also dismissed, and all pending applications stood disposed of.