Without proof of Section 12(2) notice, a Section 18 reference cannot be dismissed as time-barred.

The petitioner claimed ownership of land bearing Survey No. 159 at Village Vajeval, Taluka Thasra, District Kheda, acquired for rehabilitation of families affected by the Narmada Yojana.

The acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by notification dated 10 May 2006; the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 31 January 2007, and the award was passed on 30 July 2008.

The petitioner contended that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was never served and that he therefore had no knowledge of the award.

He filed an application for reference under Section 18 on 29 December 2021, with requisite stamp payment made on 20 April 2022.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the reference as time-barred by communication/order dated 20 May 2022.

The respondents argued that possession had been taken under Section 16 and that the landowners had participated in earlier proceedings in 2010, making the reference substantially time-barred.

Whether the petitioner’s Section 18 reference could be rejected as time-barred when service of the notice contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not established?

Whether the order/communication dated 20 May 2022 rejecting the reference was liable to be quashed and the reference directed to be decided on merits?

The Court applied Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which requires communication of the award to interested persons through notice containing the relevant particulars of the award; limitation for seeking a reference under Section 18 is to be considered in the context of such statutory notice and knowledge of the award.

The Court also considered Section 16, under which possession may be taken after the award, but held that possession proceedings do not dispense with the requirement of establishing service of notice under Section 12(2).

The Court stated that the burden of proving issuance and service of the Section 12(2) notice lies upon the acquiring authority, particularly the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.

The award was passed on 30 July 2008, but the petitioner asserted that he had not been served with the mandatory notice under Section 12(2) and consequently lacked knowledge of the award.

The Court found that the affidavit filed by the concerned authority expressly stated that evidence of service of the notice was not available in its records.

Since the respondents failed to establish service, the statutory basis for treating the Section 18 reference as time-barred was not proved.

The respondents’ contention regarding taking possession under Section 16 and the landowners’ alleged participation in proceedings did not cure the failure to establish service of the Section 12(2) notice.

Accordingly, the rejection of the reference on limitation grounds was unsustainable.

The concerned Reference Court was directed to decide the reference proceedings on merits within six weeks from receipt of the order.

Both parties were directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The petition was allowed, Rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs.