Without communication of the award under Section 12(2), limitation cannot defeat a land acquisition reference.

The original claimant’s land at village Devdanti was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna during 1973–1974.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 28 November 1977.

The claimant filed objections seeking a reference on 12 January 1989, approximately 4,067 days after the award.

The Land Acquisition Officer forwarded the reference only in 2024, after approximately 12,904 days.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 169 of 2024 as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

The claimant’s legal heirs challenged that dismissal before the High Court, relying on a Coordinate Bench decision involving the effect of non-communication of an acquisition award.

Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 obliges the Collector to give immediate notice of the award, including its essential contents, to persons interested who were not present when the award was made.

Under the proviso to Section 18, limitation for seeking a reference is computed from the date of the award, or from receipt of notice under Section 12(2), as applicable; however, “the date of the award” cannot be mechanically treated as the date on which the Collector signed or filed it without proof of actual or constructive knowledge.

In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Supreme Court held that an award becomes relevant for limitation purposes when communicated or known, actually or constructively, to the affected person.

State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, established that knowledge must extend to the essential contents of the award, not merely the fact that an award was made.

The Court also relied on Premji Nathu, which emphasised that notice under Section 12(2), preferably accompanied by a copy of the award, enables the landowner to effectively exercise the right of reference.

The same principle was recognised by the Gujarat High Court in Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai and Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector.

The High Court noted that although the objections and reference were substantially delayed, the record did not show that any notice under Section 12(2) had been issued to, or received by, the claimant.

Since communication of the award or knowledge of its essential contents is an important precondition for commencement of the statutory limitation period, the Reference Court erred in dismissing the reference solely on limitation without examining whether the claimant had received the requisite notice.

Denying consideration on merits in circumstances where the land was compulsorily acquired and the statutory notice was apparently absent would cause injustice.

Nevertheless, to balance equities, the Court excluded the period of delay from the award until the filing of objections for purposes of interest on any enhanced compensation.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Reference Court’s order dated 1 October 2024 and restored Land Reference Case No. 169 of 2024 to its original file for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were held not entitled to interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 28 November 1977 to 12 January 1989, namely, from the date of the award until the filing of objections.

One appellant was directed to file an affidavit accepting that restriction, and the record and proceedings were ordered to be returned to the Reference Court.