The Reference Court must consider actual or constructive knowledge of the award's contents when determining limitation and cannot dismiss proceedings based on irrelevant grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Government of Assam and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Government of Assam appears on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector.

2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act of 1894”) challenging the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Reference Court”) whereby the Reference proceedings being L.A. Case No. 102/2017 which arises out of L.A. Case No. 1/2005-2006, Award No. 25 was dismissed on 2 (two) technical grounds. First, on the ground that the Reference proceeding was barred by limitation and secondly on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 herein which is the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam was not arrayed as a party to the Reference proceedings.

3. Taking into account that on the above two preliminary grounds the Reference proceeding was dismissed, this Court has taken up this appeal for disposal at the stage of “Admission” with the consent of both the parties.

4. Mr. A.T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the Appellants herein received the amount of compensation on 07.01.2016 and immediately thereafter on 30.01.2016, the Reference application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner/the District Collector. He submitted that this very aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that in terms with Section 20 of the Act of 1894, it is the duty of the learned Reference Court to make parties and as such the Learned Reference Court erred in law in dismissing the Reference proceedings on the ground that some party was not arrayed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants further submitted that as per the settled principle of law, the Collector as well as the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings are required to be made parties.

5. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department with all fairness submitted that the Revenue and Disaster Management Department’s role in an acquisition proceedings is limited to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and granting the approval for the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 as well as for granting approval to the award when placed before the Revenue Department. He submitted that if the Revenue Department is the beneficiary, the department would be a person interested and the Learned Reference Court is required to array the Revenue Department as a party. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation LTD. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 221.

6. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector submitted that from a perusal of paragraph No. 12 of the judgment, it would be seen that the appellants herein have admitted that the land was acquired in the year 2005-2006 and as such, they ought to have been more diligent enough, for which, the impugned judgment and order has been rightly passed dismissing the Reference proceedings.

7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the impugned Judgment and order frame the following two points for determination:

(i) Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in dismissing the Reference proceedings on the ground that it is barred by Section 18(2) of the Act of 1894?

(ii) Whether the Reference proceedings could have been dismissed on the ground of not arraying the Revenue and Disaster Ma