M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) PRISTINE question referred to the Full bench is:- "whether a notice from the Court in the proceedings under Section 30 could be equated with the notice of the Collector under Section 18 (2){b)? The question was posed by the Division Bench in view of the fact that it was not considered by the division Bench in the light of the mandatory duty cast on the Collector under section 12 (2) to give notice of award. "

( 2 ) LAND in dispute was acquired on 12-7-1989. Notification dated 13-7-1989, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) was issued. During pendency of the proceedings, respondents-writ petitioners filed their claim petition for compensation contending that they have purchased the land in dispute from the owners, who denied their claim. The Land Acquisition collector gave his award number 3/91 dated 8-2-1991, fixing the value and measurement of land. Dispute with respect to title and apportionment was referred to the arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act. Compensation payable to the rightful claimants was deposited in Court. Claim to title was compromised vide, LA. 822/92, and compromise decree was passed on 1-7-1992. The petitioners being interested persons, having not accepted the award, by written application dated 1-8-1992 made to the Collector sought the reference to the civil Court for determination of the amount of enhanced compensation. The said application was rejected by the Collector as barred by time. Petitioners have impugned the said order.

( 3 ) LEARNED single Judge set aside the impugned order Collector was directed to make the reference. It was held that the award was passed at the back of the petitioners. No notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioners. A reference with regard to the title was pending before the civil Court.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the Bench, after noticing that Section 18 (2) of the Act provides two periods of limitation for seeking reference to civil Court for enhancement or apportionment of compensation, i. e. , six weeks from the date of Collector s award in case person seeking reference was present by himself or was represented at the time when the award was made, while in other cases within two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12 (2) as amended by the Land Acquisition (A. P. Extension and Amendment) Act XX of 1959, considered that the view taken by the division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 1478/94 decided on 7-2-1995 appears to be at variance with the specific language of section 18 (2) (b) under which the time prescribed is two months from the date of service of the notice from the Collector. It was held in Writ Appeal No. 1478 of 1994 that once the passing of the award comes to the knowledge of the claimant he is required to make the application within the statutory period prescribed. It was found as a fact that the claimants had notice of the award. The observations in verbatim run as under:"it cannot be denied that appellants had a notice of the award made by the land Acquisition Officer by virtue of service of notice in the reference under section 30 of the Act, assuming that notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land acquisition Act has not been served on them. Once a claimant comes to know of the passing of the award, he has to make an application within a period prescribed under the Act. "

( 5 ) IT would be expedient to notice the relevant scheme of the Act and the procedure provided for acquisition. It provides for the rights of the claimants, and the remedies for their enforcement within the stipulated period provided by the Act. Publication of the notification of the intention of the Government to acquire the land is sine qua non for initiating the acquisition proceedings, within 30 days of which claimants can object to acquisition, and the Collector after hearing the objections if any declare the lands to be acquired. Thereafter the Collector is requi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document