Refusal to accept a registered Section 12(2) notice constitutes service, triggering Section 18 limitation.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 September 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting her application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking a reference against the land acquisition award dated 2 May 2013.

Notice under Sections 9(3) and 9(4) had been issued, fixing 25 June 2012 for hearing before the award was made.

After the award, notice under Section 12(2) was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 9 September 2014 and was allegedly served on 13 September 2014 by refusal to accept it.

The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the award on 9 March 2017 and filed the Section 18 reference application on 13 April 2017.

She contended that the Section 12(2) notice had not been duly served and that she acquired knowledge of the award only upon obtaining its certified copy.

Whether the Section 12(2) notice was duly served upon the petitioner by registered post despite her refusal to accept it?

Whether the petitioner’s application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed on 13 April 2017, was within the prescribed limitation period?

Whether the High Court should interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner’s delayed Section 18 reference application?

The Court applied Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits a person interested who has not accepted the award to require the Collector to refer the matter to the Court for determination of objections relating to measurement, compensation, entitlement, or apportionment.

Under the proviso to Section 18(2)(b), where the applicant was not present or represented at the time of the award, the application must be made within six weeks of receipt of the notice under Section 12(2), or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period expires first.

The Court further applied the principle that refusal to accept a registered notice constitutes effective service, and therefore cannot be used to deny knowledge of the award.

The Court found that the petitioner had not challenged the factual finding that the Section 12(2) notice, dispatched by registered post on 9 September 2014, was refused by her and consequently stood duly served on 13 September 2014.

Such refusal established service and defeated the petitioner’s contention that she lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

In any event, Section 18(2)(b) required the application to be filed within six weeks of receipt of notice or within six months of the award, whichever expired first.

The award was dated 2 May 2013, whereas the petitioner sought a certified copy only on 9 March 2017 and filed the reference application on 13 April 2017, nearly three years after refusing the notice.

The Court noted that no explanation had been offered for this delay.

Accordingly, the application was clearly beyond the statutory limitation period, and the petitioner failed to establish any basis for interference with the rejection order.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.