Without Section 12(2) notice, limitation cannot defeat a delayed land acquisition reference.

The appellants’ land situated at Village Devdanti was acquired for the Vatrak Jalagar Yojna in 1973–74, and the award was passed on 12 March 1975.

The original claimant filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer on 12 September 1989, approximately 5,299 days after the award. The reference was forwarded to the Reference Court only in 2024, after approximately 12,664 days.

The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 175 of 2024 as time-barred on 1 October 2024.

The claimants challenged that dismissal before the High Court, relying on a Coordinate Bench decision directing adjudication on merits where notice of the award under Section 12(2) had not been established.

1. Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could be dismissed as time-barred without determining whether the award and its essential contents had been communicated to the claimants under Section 12(2).

2. Whether, in the absence of proof of such communication, the matter should be remanded to the Reference Court for adjudication on merits, subject to an appropriate limitation on interest.

The Court applied Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 12(2) requires the Collector to give immediate notice of the award, including its essential contents, to interested persons who were not present when the award was made; the limitation for seeking a reference cannot ordinarily operate against a claimant who was not informed of the award in the legally required manner.

Relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Court held that the “date of the award” for limitation purposes means the date on which the award was actually or constructively communicated to, or became known to, the affected party.

It further relied on State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, for the principle that knowledge must extend to the essential contents of the award, and on Premji Nathu for the requirement that the landowner should be supplied with the relevant particulars or a copy of the award to effectively exercise the right under Section 18.

The Court also followed the Coordinate Bench and Division Bench decisions holding that, absent proof of notice under Section 12(2), dismissal solely on limitation may cause injustice; however, equitable relief may require denial of interest for the period of unexplained delay.

Although the objections were filed nearly fourteen years after the award and the reference was made much later, the record did not show that notice of the award, or its essential contents, had been issued to or received by the claimants.

Under Sections 12(2) and 18, limitation could not be mechanically computed from the date on which the Collector signed or passed the award when statutory communication to the interested persons was unproved.

Applying the principles that actual or constructive knowledge of the award is essential before limitation begins, the High Court held that the Reference Court had erred in dismissing the reference solely as time-barred.

At the same time, to balance the equities arising from the claimants’ delay in filing objections, the Court directed that no interest would be payable on any enhanced compensation for the period from 12 March 1975 to 12 September 1989.

The claimants were directed to file an affidavit confirming that they would not claim interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between 12 March 1975 and 12 September 1989.

R&P, if any, was directed to be returned to the Reference Court, and the affidavit was to be placed on the High Court record.