Receipt of compensation constitutes constructive notice triggering Section 18’s six-month limitation period.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Reference Court was required to determine whether the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, particularly when the claimant allegedly received compensation on the date of the award?

The court held

The High Court did not finally determine the limitation issue. It allowed the appeal by way of remand, confined to reconsideration of whether the respondent’s application under Section 18 was filed within limitation.

It also directed

The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court on 19.09.2026, with liberty to lead evidence, and the Reference Court was requested to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.

01Facts

The Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 1 dated 07.07.2008, determining compensation for the acquired land at ₹16,00,000 per acre.

pp. 1–2

The respondent allegedly received the compensation on the date of the award. He thereafter filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20.08.2019.

The reference was forwarded to the Reference Court after a delay of more than ten years. By award dated 17.07.2026, the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar enhanced the compensation to ₹25,00,000 per acre and held that the reference was not time-barred.

p. 2, 8

The appellant challenged the award under Section 54 of the 1894 Act, principally contending that the Section 18 application was filed beyond limitation.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Reference Court was required to determine whether the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, particularly when the claimant allegedly received compensation on the date of the award?

¶ 3, 6, 9–10

ii.2. Whether the Reference Court’s failure to examine the date of filing of the Section 18 application and the original Collector’s record warranted remand of the matter?

¶ 9–12

03Law Applied

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 makes timely filing of a written application for reference a condition precedent to the Collector’s power to make a valid reference; the Reference Court must independently examine compliance with the statutory limitation requirements, as held in Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572.

¶ 6

Under Section 12(2), communication of the award to an interested person is mandatory, and the limitation period is computed from the date on which the award is actually or constructively known to the claimant, rather than mechanically from the date on which it was made, as held in Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140.

¶ 7

Under Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545, receipt or withdrawal of compensation, participation in possession proceedings, or acknowledgment of the award may establish actual or constructive knowledge; once the claimant asserts on oath that he lacked notice, the Collector must produce evidence proving such knowledge.

¶ 8

Delay cannot be condoned where the statutory limitation has expired after actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 4

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 11Section 12Section 18Section 54

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the respondent’s alleged receipt of compensation on 07.07.2008 could establish actual or constructive knowledge of the award, thereby potentially requiring the Section 18 application to be filed within six months.

¶ 9

However, the Reference Court had not determined the actual date on which the application was filed before the Collector, despite the specific objection that it was filed after more than ten years.

¶ 9

Instead, it had merely concluded that the reference was not time-barred on the basis of the respondent’s entitlement to enhanced compensation and the alleged continuing nature of the claim.

¶ 9

Since limitation is a jurisdictional precondition to a valid reference, the Reference Court ought to have summoned and examined the original Collector’s record and assessed the evidence regarding notice, receipt of compensation, and the date of filing.

¶ 10

The unexplained delay in forwarding the reference, coupled with the possibility of irregularity or manipulation in the record, made reconsideration necessary.

¶ 10