Timely communication of the award's contents is mandatory; failure results in the reinstatement of claims despite delays in processing.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. Since the captioned group of appeals, is arising out of the common judgment dated 03.11.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’), with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are heard together and are being decided by this common oral judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the reference proceedings.

2. Captioned group of appeals, is arising out of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in LAR Nos.1/2014 to 7/2014; LAR No.10/2014; LAR Nos.11/2014, 13/2014 to 17/2014, LAR Nos.19/2014 and 20/2014 whereby the reference has been rejected on the ground of the reference cases being barred by limitation.

3. Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the award was declared on 23.01.1995 followed by notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’) on 25.08.1995, however, the notice did not accompany the award. In absence of receipt of the copy of the award, on 05.09.1995, the claimants applied for certified copy which was ready on 09.09.1996 and was made available on 18.09.1996. It is further submitted that immediately, within limitation, on 26.09.1996, application was filed before the Collector, to make the reference before the Court below. Surprisingly, the reference was forwarded to the Court by the office of the Collector almost after a period close to 17 years. It is submitted that the excuse provided is that inadvertently, the reference remained with the office and could not be sent to the Court.

3.1 It is further submitted that the learned Judge, has proceeded on erroneous footing observing that the claimant has admitted that the award was passed in his presence. In fact, a bare perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, suggest that the hearing was conducted on 18.11.1993 whereas the award was declared on 23.01.1995. Moreover, there is not a whisper as to whether any notice was issued to the claimants asking them to remain present on the date when award was declared. It is further submitted that assuming without admitting that the claimants were present, at the most, it could be restricted, only in the case of one claimant; however, in cases of other claimants, it cannot be said that in their presence, the award was passed.

3.2 It is submitted that the reference Court, has failed to appreciate and consider the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 250. It has been held that the provisions of Section 12(2) emphasizes that along with the notice issued, the land owner who is not present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he may effectively exercise his right under sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Deputy Collector Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Panam Project, Godhra & Ors., reported in 1985 (1) GLR 275 , The scope of sub-section (2) of Section 12 has been discussed. The issue, was whether under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1894 is there an obligation upon the Collector merely to intimate about the passing of the award or he is obliged to convey the matters contained in the award by sending either a copy of the award or the essential part of it. While considering the judgment of the Apex Court so also this Court, it has been held and observed that there is an obligation on the part of the C