Without Section 12(2) notice, limitation cannot defeat a landowner’s reference for enhanced compensation.

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

The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 28 November 1977. The claimant filed objections seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 12 January 1989, approximately 4,067 days after the award. The reference was forwarded to the Reference Court only in 2024, after approximately 12,904 days. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, dismissed Land Reference Case No. 171 of 2024 as barred by limitation on 1 October 2024.

Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could be dismissed as time-barred solely by reckoning limitation from the date on which the award was made, without establishing communication of the award or its essential contents to the claimant.

Whether, in the absence of proof that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued or served, the matter ought to be remanded for adjudication on merits.

Whether the claimant should be denied interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between the award and the filing of objections.

The Court applied Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under Section 12(2), the Collector must give immediate notice of the award to interested persons who were not present, and such notice must communicate the essential contents of the award. The limitation period for seeking a reference under Section 18 begins upon actual or constructive knowledge of the award and its essential contents, rather than automatically from the date on which the award was signed or filed.

The Court relied on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, which held that communication of the award is essential; State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, which held that knowledge must extend to the essential contents of the award; the Division Bench decision in Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Deputy Collector; Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai; and Premji Nathu, which emphasised that a copy of the award should accompany the Section 12(2) notice.

The High Court found that the record did not establish that notice under Section 12(2), or the essential contents of the award, had ever been communicated to the claimant. Consequently, the mere fact that the award was made on 28 November 1977 could not conclusively trigger the limitation period under Section 18.

Dismissing the reference solely on limitation, without examining whether the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of the award, would defeat the statutory right to seek judicial determination of compensation and cause injustice in a compulsory acquisition case. Following the coordinate Bench’s approach in materially similar circumstances, the Court held that the reference should be restored and decided on merits. To balance the equities arising from the claimant’s delay in filing objections, it directed that no interest would be payable on any enhanced compensation for the period from the date of the award until the filing of objections on 12 January 1989.

The claimant was held disentitled to interest on any enhanced compensation for the period from 28 November 1977 to 12 January 1989. One appellant was directed to file an affidavit recording that undertaking, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Reference Court.