Without Section 12(2) notice, Section 18 limitation runs from the claimant’s knowledge of the award.

The State appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, against the award dated 25 November 2021 passed by the Eleventh District Judge, Gwalior, in MJC No. 42/2018.

The underlying land-acquisition award had been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29 December 2016.

The respondents had sought a reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The State challenged the reference and the enhanced compensation on three grounds: limitation, receipt of the original compensation without protest, and erroneous treatment of the acquired land as irrigated.

The Reference Court held that the respondents were not shown to have been present when the acquisition award was made and that there was no material proving service of notice or communication of the award to them.

It also relied on revenue records showing that the land was irrigated.

The appeal was filed on 26 March 2022; the Court held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s orders extending limitation during the COVID-19 period, it was within limitation and disposed of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as unnecessary.

Whether the respondents’ application seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was barred by limitation in the absence of proof that they had received notice under Section 12(2) or had knowledge of the essential contents of the acquisition award?

Whether the respondents were disentitled from seeking enhancement of compensation because they had received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest?

Whether the Reference Court erred in assessing the acquired land as irrigated while determining enhanced compensation?

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permits an interested person who has not accepted the award to seek a reference concerning the measurement, amount, apportionment, or entitlement to compensation; where the claimant was not present at the making of the award, the limitation runs from receipt of notice under Section 12(2), or, in the absence of such notice, from actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award.

In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, and Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545, the Supreme Court held that the expression “date of the Collector’s award” must be understood as the date on which the claimant acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the award, and not mechanically as the date on which it was signed; the initial burden lies on the claimant to assert absence of presence, notice, and prior knowledge, after which the Collector must prove service or knowledge.

Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 250, further established that notice under Section 12(2) should be accompanied by a copy of the award to enable an effective reference application.

The Court also relied on Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 8 SCC 266, which followed the same principle.

The appeal was examined under Section 96 CPC read with Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

The Court upheld the Reference Court’s finding that the reference was within limitation because the respondents specifically pleaded that they were not present when the award was passed and that no notice under Section 12(2), or copy of the award, had been served on them.

The State neither effectively denied this assertion before the Reference Court nor produced material in the appeal proving the respondents’ presence, service of notice, or communication of the award.

Applying Bhagwan Das and Premji Nathu, the Court held that limitation could not be computed rigidly from the date of the acquisition award when the respondents had not been shown to possess knowledge of its essential contents.

The objection based on receipt of compensation without protest was rejected at the appellate stage because it had not been raised before the Reference Court and no factual foundation or evidence had been led on that issue.

Finally, the finding that the land was irrigated was sustained because the Reference Court relied on revenue records marked Exhibits P/1 to P/10, and the State failed to identify contrary evidence.

The objection concerning receipt of compensation without protest was not entertained due to the absence of a pleading and evidence before the Reference Court.

The assessment of the land as irrigated and the resulting compensation were found justified on the basis of the revenue records.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as meritless, and I.A. No. 1318/2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was disposed of as unnecessary.