The limitation prescribed under section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 starts running from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award, and not from the date of the award itself.

In Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 28 of 1991, the Reference Court, acting under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 9,25,650/- per hectare, after deducting the amount already paid to the respondent No. 1/claimant. Apart from this, the claimant is also held entitled to the statutory benefits consequently available in law. This first appeal has been preferred by the acquiring body, challenging the enhancement of compensation.

2. Shri Moharir, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-acquiring body, has urged :

(1) that the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court, as the appellant was not permitted to file written statement and was not joined in the reference as party-respondent;

(2) that the reference should have been dismissed as barred by limitation; and

(3) that the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation.

3. The points for determination are as under :

(a) Whether the matter is required to be remanded back to the Reference Court to provide an opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and further to participate in the proceedings to defend the claim for enhancement of compensation?;

(b) Whether the reference was liable to be dismissed as barred by time, as provided under section 18(2) of the said Act?;

(c) Whether the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court from Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 9,25,650/- per hectare is supported by the relevant and admissible evidence on record?; and

(d) What should be the order?

As to Point No. (a) :

4. The undisputed factual position is that an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the appellant for being joined as the party-respondent on 25-6-1992, and it was marked as Exhibit 10. It was opposed by the claimant by filing the reply at Exhibit 13. In view of the provision of section 50(2) of the said Act, the Reference Court allowed the said application by an order dated 19-10-1994. However, it is an undisputed position that (i) actual amendment was not carried out by joining the appellant as the party-respondent in the appeal; (ii) the appellant did not file the written statement on record; and (iii) the appellant has extensively cross-examined the witnesses examined by the claimant.

5. Mere technicalities of failure to join the appellant as the party-respondent in the reference proceedings cannot defeat the ends of justice. The application was allowed for joining the appellant as the party-respondent in the reference proceedings by an order dated 19-10-1994. The appellant was thus well aware that it is permitted to defend the proceedings and was required to file the written statement. The appellant has not chosen to file the written statement, but has chosen to participate in the proceedings by merely cross-examining the witnesses. The appellant has not chosen to lead any evidence - either oral or documentary. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the order suffers from miscarriage of justice on account of the fact that the amendment for joining the appellant as the party-respondent was not carried out till the date on which the matter was closed for judgment. The contention is, therefore, rejected.

As to Point No. (b) :

6. Since lot of debate, supported by the decisions on the question of bar of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, has taken place, it will have to be discussed in detail.

The relevant provisions of the Constitution and of the Land Acquisition Act :

7. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Article 31-A deals with saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc. In terms of sub-clause (a) under clause (1) of Article 31-A, notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for the ac