Without proven Section 12(2) notice, a land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed as time-barred.

The petitioner claimed ownership of land bearing Survey No. 714 situated at Village Golaj, Taluka Thasra, District Kheda, acquired for rehabilitation of families affected by the Narmada Yojna.

The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”); the notification under Section 4 was issued on 15 May 2006, the declaration under Section 6 on 19 September 2007, and the award was passed on 5 June 2009.

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

He filed applications for reference under Section 18 on 29 December 2021 and 28 April 2022, which were rejected as time-barred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had remained inactive and that possession had been taken under Section 16 of the Act in the presence of the landowners, who had signed the relevant proceedings.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as time-barred was legally sustainable when service of notice under Section 12(2) had not been established?

Whether the petitioner’s Section 18 reference was required to be decided on merits in the absence of proof that the award had been duly communicated to him?

The Court applied Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which requires communication of the award to interested persons through notice, including a copy or relevant particulars of the award.

The Court also applied Section 18 of the Act, which governs references against an award and prescribes limitation linked to knowledge or receipt of the award; limitation cannot be enforced against a claimant without first establishing legally sufficient communication of the award.

Section 16, concerning taking possession after the award, did not by itself establish service of a Section 12(2) notice.

The Court found that the award had been passed on 5 June 2009, but the respondents failed to prove that notice under Section 12(2) had been served upon the petitioner.

In particular, the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 expressly stated that evidence of service of the statutory notice was not available in its records.

Since the acquiring authority carried the burden of proving service and had not discharged it, the petitioner’s assertion that he lacked knowledge of the award could not be rejected solely on the basis of delay.

The alleged presence of the landowners during possession proceedings under Section 16 did not establish that the award had been communicated in the manner required by Section 12(2).

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the decision dated 20 May 2022 by which the petitioner’s Section 18 reference had been dismissed as time-barred.

The learned reference court was directed to decide the reference proceedings on merits within six weeks from receipt of the Court’s order.

The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

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