Refusal to accept registered Section 12(2) notice constitutes valid 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 the petitioner’s application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking a reference against the land acquisition award dated 2 May 2013.

The award was preceded by notice under Sections 9(3) and 9(4), issued on 15 May 2012, fixing 25 June 2012 for hearing.

After the award, notice under Section 12(2) was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. on 9 September 2014 and was recorded as served on 13 September 2014 by refusal.

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.

The petitioner contended that the Section 12(2) notice had not been duly served and that the award came to the petitioner’s knowledge only upon obtaining its certified copy.

Whether the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly served upon the petitioner when delivery was refused after dispatch by Registered Post A.D.

Whether the application under Section 18 of the Act, filed on 13 April 2017, was within the statutory limitation period prescribed by the proviso to Section 18(2).

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

The Court applied Section 18(1) and the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Section 18 permits a person interested who has not accepted the award to require the Collector to refer specified objections to the competent court.

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

The Court further applied the principle that refusal to accept a notice sent by Registered Post constitutes valid service, thereby establishing knowledge of the award for limitation purposes.

The Court found that the petitioner had not challenged the finding that the Section 12(2) notice dated 9 September 2014 was sent by Registered Post A.D. and refused on 13 September 2014.

Such refusal amounted to valid service, eliminating the need to determine constructive knowledge independently.

Since the application under Section 18 was filed only on 13 April 2017—nearly three years after the recorded refusal of notice—it was well beyond the six-week period prescribed under Section 18(2)(b), and also beyond six months from the award dated 2 May 2013.

The petitioner offered no explanation for the delay in seeking a certified copy or filing the reference application.

Accordingly, the rejection of the reference application was consistent with the statutory limitation scheme, and no ground for judicial interference was established.

The Section 18 application filed in April 2017 was time-barred and unsupported by any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Court therefore declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the Special Civil Application, with no order as to costs.