The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the limitation for filing reference application and the requirement of actual or constructive communication of the award to the party concerned.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. These appeals are directed against common award dated 9.5.1988 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in Land Acquisition Cases No. 43/4 to 45/4 of 1987. The facts:

2. Vide notification dated 27.2.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act), the Government of Haryana acquired the land of the appellants for construction of link road connecting Grain Market, Shahabad with Ladwa- Shahabad road. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 11.9.1980 determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre.

3. On 16.12.1980, the appellants filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation by contending that the market value of the land is not less than Rs. 50/- per square yard. They also claimed compensation on account of severance of their holdings.

4. In the identical replies filed on behalf of the respondent, it was averred that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was just and proper. It was further pleaded that the reference applications were barred by time, inasmuch as, the same had been filed after expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-

"(a) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issue of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

(b) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation on account of severance of their holdings? OPP

(c) Whether the objections are time barred? OPR

(d) Relief."

6. The learned Additional District Judge decided issue No. 1 in favour of the appellants and assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per acre. However, he rejected their claim for award of compensation on account of severance. On the issue of limitation, the learned Additional District Judge referred to Section 18 of the Act, the alleged admission made by Shri Manjit Singh (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1264 of 1988) that he had come to know about the award on 8.10.1980 and held that the reference applications were barred by time. For the sake of reference, paragraph 20 of the award passed by the Additional District Judge, which contains discussion on the issue of limitation is reproduced below:

"The award by the Collector was announced on 11.9.1980. At that time, the objectors were not present. Therefore, notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act was issued to them. According to the case set up by the State, this notice was served upon the objectors on 8.10.1980. Manjit Singh-AW1 admitted in his cross-examination that he came to know of the award on 8.10.1980. He, therefore, admits the plea raised by the respondent - State. The claim petition was drafted on 16.12.1980 and as per the objection taken by the State, it reached the Collector on 17.12.1980. However, this plea remained totally unsubstantiated. No evidence was led by them to show that they acquired the knowledge of the award on 13.12.1980. Rather, Manjit Singh-AW1 conceded in the cross-examination that he came to know of the award on 8.10.1980. The plea raised in the claim petition, has therefore, to be rejected and it is the objection raised by State which prevails."

7. Shri C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned award and argued that the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on the issue of limitation is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. He referred to Section 18(2) of the Act to show that limitation of 6 weeks is applicable only if the person filing reference application is present or represented before the Collector at the time of award or he received notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act, else the limitation of six months is applicable within which the claimant can file reference application