The limitation period under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 commences from the date of service of the notice of the award upon the landowner.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Ten appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same order passed in ten different writ petitions.

2. The orders under appeal are all dated September 24, 2014.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge, held that the application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not within the prescribed time. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions.

4. Aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners are before us.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, neither a copy of the award was served upon any of the appellants nor was a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 served upon any of the appellants. He submits that, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 commences, upon fulfilment of the criteria specified therein. None of the appellants were aware of the award or its contents. No notice, as noted above, under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was served upon the appellants.

6. Relying upon AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3536 (Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), he submits that, limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 will not commence till the notice of the award is served upon land owner. He relies upon (2002)1 CAL LT 170 (HC) (Sambhu Nath Kshetry & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of the contention that acquiring details of the award does not constitute a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1894.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits a status report on behalf of his client which be taken on record. He submits that each of the appellants were aware of the date of the award. He refers to the averments made in the writ petitions in which, the impugned orders were passed, in particular to Paragraph 17 thereof. He submits that a copy of the notice under Section 12(2) was annexed to the writ petitions. That apart, he refers to a letter issued by the appellants dated January 1, 2003, where the appellants claimed that they were aware of the award. Consequently, he submits that, since each of the appellants were aware of the award, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned orders.

8. The appellants as writ petitioners approached the Writ Court, requiring a reference petition filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 in respect of specified Land Acquisition cases, to be made to the appropriate Civil Judge. Such writ petitions were considered by the learned Trial Judge and by the impugned order dated September 24, 2014, the learned Judge held that the appellants were served with a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was not within the prescribed period of time.

9. We required the State to produce materials to establish that any of the appellants was served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. State submitted a report which we took on record today. The report does not speak of any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 being served individually upon any of the appellants.

10. In the report submitted today, the State relies upon averment made in paragraph 17 of the writ petitions by the appellants to the effect that, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 were issued to Himangshu Ghoshal and Sambhu Nath Ghoshal. Neither Himangshu Ghoshal nor Sambhu Nath Ghoshal are appellants in any of the ten appeals under consideration. They did not approach the Writ Court also. Notices under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 served on Himangshu Ghoshal and Sambhu Nath Ghoshal cannot be construed to mean service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 upon the appellants. Appellants and the Ghoshals are not connected with each other. State failed to establish service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 upon any of the a