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

The appellants’ land situated at Village Rambhoda was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna in 1973–1974, and the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 16 September 1975.

The original claimant filed objections under the Land Acquisition Act on 30 November 1988, approximately 4,833 days after the award. The reference was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer only in 2024, after approximately 12,942 days.

The Reference Court dismissed the land reference as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

In appeal, the appellants contended that no notice or communication of the award had been served upon them and relied on a Coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits in similar circumstances.

The State did not oppose appropriate orders in view of that precedent.

Whether the land reference could be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation when the record did not establish that the award, or its essential contents, had been communicated to the claimant under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Whether the matter was required to be remanded to the Reference Court for adjudication on merits, subject to denial of interest for the period of delay attributable to the claimant?

The Court applied Sections 11, 12(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Under Section 12(2), the Collector must immediately communicate the award, including its essential contents, to interested persons who were not present when it was made; limitation for seeking a reference is linked to actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Supreme Court held that the “date of the award” means the date on which the award is communicated or becomes known, actually or constructively, and that failure to communicate the award cannot defeat the claimant’s right to seek a reference.

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 of its existence.

The Court also relied on Premji Nathu, which emphasised that communication of the award enables the landowner to effectively exercise the right under Section 18.

The Gujarat High Court precedents further recognised the Collector’s obligation to communicate the award or its essential contents.

The Court found that the record did not indicate issuance or receipt of notice of the award by the claimant.

Applying the principles that limitation under Section 18 cannot run mechanically from the date on which the Collector signed the award, and that knowledge must concern the award’s essential contents, the Court held that the Reference Court had erred in rejecting the reference solely as time-barred.

Since the compulsory acquisition of the claimant’s land and the absence of demonstrated statutory notice raised a serious issue regarding deprivation of lawful compensation, adjudication on merits was necessary.

However, to preserve equity and account for the claimant’s delay in filing objections, the Court denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from the award dated 16 September 1975 until the filing of objections on 30 November 1988.

The judgment of the Reference Court dated 1 October 2024 in Land Reference Case No. 193 of 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the reference was restored and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The claimants were held not entitled to interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between 16 September 1975 and 30 November 1988.

One appellant was directed to file an affidavit accepting that limitation on interest, and the Registry was directed to retain the affidavit on record.