The period of limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act begins to run from the date of the award made by the Collector, irrespective of whether the claimant has received the notice or not.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - AWARD - LIMITATION - NOTICE - SECTION 12(2) AND 18 - INTERPRETATION - FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE - EFFECT ON LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, trustees of a trust, owned land acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. They filed a claim for compensation but did not receive any notice of the award made by the Collector. They applied for a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act, but the Collector declined, citing limitation. The petitioners challenged this decision by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the application for reference was barred by limitation. The award made by the Collector under Section 11 was an offer to the claimant, and the filing of the award in the Collector's office operated as an offer to the claimant, irrespective of whether the claimant had received the notice or not. The failure of the Collector to give notice under Section 12(2) did not confer any right on the claimant to postpone the period of limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the failure of the Collector to give notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act affected the period of limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The period of limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act began to run from the date of the award made by the Collector, irrespective of whether the claimant had received the notice or not. 2. The failure of the Collector to give notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act did not confer any right on the claimant to postpone the period of limitation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. The petitioners are the present trustees of a deed of trust dated 28-3-1928, and as such trustees they owned certain land at Goregaon admeasuring about 24 acres. In June 1948 Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act in relation to this land and a notification under Section 6 was issued on 4-6-1949. In July 1949 notice to file the claim was given and pursuant to this notice the petitioners filed a claim in November 1949. They made a claim of about Rs. 28,00,000.

As far as the petitioners were concerned, nothing further happened till March 1953 and then they came to know that an award had been made by the Collector on 28-12-1951, by which award he had awarded to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 28,128-3-0. They then applied to the Collector for a reference under Section 18. The Collector declined to make a reference on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. and the petitioners have come before us for a writ to compel the Collector to make the reference, and the question that we have to consider on this petition is whether the application of the petitioners is barred by limitation.

2. Now, turning to the Act, a notification under Section 4 can be issued when it appears to the State Government that land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Then Section 6 provides for a declaration when the Government is satisfied that a particular land is needed for a public purpose. Section 9 then provides for a public notice to be given by the Collector to the effect that Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him, and it was pursuant to this notice that the petitioners filed their claim claiming Rs. 28,00,000.

Section 11 provides for the inquiry which the Collector has to make prior to the making of the award, and it is not disputed that this inquiry is an administrative inquiry and it is not incumbent upon the Collector to give any notice with regard to this inquiry to any claimant. In fact no notice of the inquiry was given to the petitioners and they were not present. Then Section 12 provides for the filing of the award which is made by the Collector after the holding of the inquiry under Section 11, and that section provides : "Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." In this case the award was filed in the Collectors office on 28-12-1951, and the question that we have to consider is whether it has become final and conclusive. It would become final and conclusive unless the case of the petitioners, fell in the exceptions provided in the subsequent sections. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Now, a notice was given by the Collector of the filing of the award, but it is not now disputed that the notice was not given to the petitioners. It was given to a person by the name of Rustomji Pestonji. It was sent to the Mamlatdar for being served.

As this Rustomji Festonji could not be traced, the notice was never served and a copy of the notice was sent to the petitioners only some time in April 1953. It is the petitioners case in the correspondence that when they filed their claim they gave to the Collectors office the names of the claimants and their addresses and therefore there should have been no difficulty on the part of the Collector in serving the notices upon the petitioners at their proper addresses, and we are satisfied in this case that there was gross negligence on the part of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document