JUDGMENT :

Jayant Patel, J.

Rule. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Jayswal waives notice of Rule. The matter is finally heard.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the respondent whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") has been dismissed on the ground that the same was time barred.

3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the construction of Jinjuwada Branch Canal of Narmada Project. The notification under Section 4 as well as under Section 6 were published and thereafter the Award was passed on 7.2.2011 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer whereby he awarded the compensation at Rs.7.61 per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs.5.07 per sq. meter for non-irrigated land. As per the petitioner, on 16.5.2011, within a period of 6 months from the date of the Award, dispute was raised under Section 18 for additional compensation. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure - A). Under the circumstances the present petition before this Court.

4. We have heard Mr. Sheth for the petitioner and Mr. Jayswal, learned A.G.P. for the respondent.

5. It appears from the statement made in the petition as well as from the Affidavit in Reply and Rejoinder that as per the petitioner no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was ever served upon him, whereas as per the respondent, Notice under Section 12(2) was served upon one Fatesing Kanthaji since he accepted the notice on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent has also stated that the notice has been sent by U.P.C. and there is further confirmation of the receipt of the notice through Fatesing by the son of the petitioner and under these circumstances it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the statutory period had expired if considered from the date of the service of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, the respondent has rightly rejected the application under Section 18 of the Act being time barred.

6. Section 12 of the Act, for ready reference, reads as under :

"12. Award of Collector when to be final - (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as herein after 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 apportunment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) 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."

The aforesaid section shows that the Collector has to give notice of the award to the person concerned or by their representative when the award is made. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the notice is not served upon the petitioner. No authentic document is produced on behalf of the respondent to show that Fatesing Kanthaji, served with the notice, was the authorised representative of the petitioner. Be it recorded that Fatesing Kanthaji is not even the family member of the petitioner. Therefore, as such the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act could not be said as served upon the petitioner or his authorised representative.

7. The attempt made to contend that the notice was served by UPC also cannot be countenanced and it can be said that such procedure adopted is contrary to the statutory provision inasmuch as Section 45 of the Act provides for a particular mode and the manner of effecting service of the Notice. Section 45 of the Act reads as under :

"45. Service of notice - (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed in the case of a notice under Section 4, by the officer therein mentioned and in the case of any oth