PREMJI NATHUversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

                        [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1042


A                          PREMJI NATHU
                                   V.
               STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3430 of 2012)

                           APRIL 09, 2012
B
                 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU
                   JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

       LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.18 - Making of
C reference by Collector to the Court - Limitation period -
  Acquisition proceedings - Award of compensation - Notice
  issued by Collector to appellant-land owner u!s. 12(2) on
  22.2.1985 - Copy of award not annexed with the notice -
  Subsequently, certified copy of award obtained by land owners
D - On 8. 4. 1985, application uls. 18 filed before the Collector for
  making reference to Court for awarding higher compensation
  - Reference court declined to give relief on the ground that
  application u/s. 18 was time barred - High Court upheld the
  decision of reference court - On appeal, held: If the land owner
E is not present or is not represented before the Collector at the
  time of making of award then the application for reference has
  to be made within six weeks of the receipt of notice uls. 12(2)
  or within six months from the date of the Collector's award,
  whichever period shall first expire - Along with the notice
F issued u/s. 12(2), the land owner should be supplied with a
  copy thereof so that he may effectively exercise his right ul
  s.18(1) to seek reference to the Court - In the instant case,
  copy of the award was not sent to the appellant along with the
  notice and without that he could not have effectively made an
G application for seeking reference - Therefore, the award
  passed by reference court is liable to be set aside and the
  respondents are directed to pay enhanced compensation to
  the appellant @ Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and
  Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land with an additional

H                                1042
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                 1043


amount of Rs.2 per sq.meter-Appellant shall also be entitled    A
to other statutory benefits like solatium and interest - In
exercise of power u/s. 142 of the Constitution, Supreme Court
directed the respondents to pay enhanced compensation,
solatium etc. even to those land owners who did not file
appeals before the High Court and/or have not approached        B
Supreme Court by filing petitions u/Article 136 of the
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.

     Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 4.3.1982 in respect         C
 of certain land including appellant's land and the
declaration under Section 6(1) was published on
7 .10.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
determined the amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.110/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/- per Are for
non-irrigated land. After passing of the award, the             D
Collector issued notice to the appellant under Section
12(2), which was received by him on 22.2.1985. Similar
notices were received by the other landowners on
22.2.1985 and 23.2.1985. As the copy of the award was
not annexed with the notice, the appellant obtained             E
certified copy thereof through his Advocate and then
submitted an application dated 8.4.1985 to the Collector
for making a reference to the Court for award of higher
compensation with solatium and interest. In their claim
petitions, the appellant and other landowners pleaded           F
that their land had irrigation facilities; that they were
taking crops of groundnut, wheat, fodder etc. and they
are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per
Are. The Reference Court held that the landowners are
entitled to Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280    G
per Are for non-irrigated land with an additional amount
of Rs.2 per square meter, but declined relief to the
appellant and other landowners on the ground that the
applications filed by them were beyond the time specified
in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant        H
    1044   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A and three other landowners challenged the judgment of
  the Reference Court which was dismissed by the High
  Court.

      The question which arose for consideration in the
  instant appeal was whether the application submitted by
8
  the appellant under Section 18(1) of the Act was barred
  by time and the Reference Court rightly refused to
  entertain his prayer for enhancement of the
  compensation determined by the Special Land
  Acquisition Officer.
c
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. An analysis of the provisions of the Land
  Acquisition Act shows that by virtue of Section 12(1), an
0 award made by the Collector is treated final and
  conclusive evidence of the true area and value of the land
  and apportionment of the compensation among the
  persons interested. In terms of Section 12(2), the
  Collector is required to give notice of his award to the
E interested persons who are not present either personally
  or through their representatives at the time of making of
  award. Section 18(1) provides for making of reference by
  the Collector to the Court for the determination of the
  amount of compensation etc. Section 18(2) lays down
  that an application for reference shall be made within six
F weeks from the date of the Collector's award, if at the time
  of making of award the person seeking reference was
  present or was represented before the Collector. If the
  person is not present or is not represented before the
  Collector, then the application for reference has to be
G made within six weeks of the receipt of notice under
  Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the
  Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
  The reason for providing six months from the date of the
  award for making an application seeking reference,
H
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT               1045


where the applicant did not receive a notice under            A
Section 12(2) of the Act, while providing only six weeks
from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act for making an application for reference where the
applicant has received a notice under Section 12(2) of the
Act is obvious. When a notice under Section 12(2) of the      B
Act is received, the landowner or person interested is
made aware of all relevant particulars of the award which
enables him to decide whether he should seek reference
or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know that
an award has been made, he would require further time         c
to make enquiries or secure copies so that he can
ascertain the relevant particulars of the award. Along with
the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, the land
owner who is not present or is not represented before the
Collector at the time of making of award should be            0
supplied with a copy thereof so that he may effectively
exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek reference
to the Court. [Paras 10-11] [1051-H; 1052-A-G]

     2. A careful reading of the averments contained in
the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1)    E
shows that the notice issued by the Collector under
Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985.
Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the
award and filed application dated 8.4.1985 for making a
reference to the Court. This implies that copy of the award   F
had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice
and without that he could not have effectively made an
application for seeking reference. On behalf of the State
Government, no evidence was produced before the
Reference Court to show that copy of the award was sent       G
to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, this
aspect was totally ignored by the Reference Court which
mechanically concluded that the application filed on
8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b).
                                                              H
    1046   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 3 S.C.R.


A The High Court also committed serious error by
  approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit
  without considering the fact that the notice issued by the
  Collector under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by
  a copy of the award which was essential for effective
B exercise of right vested in the appellant to seek reference
  under Section 18(1). The impugned judgment and the
  award passed by the Reference Court are set aside and
  the respondents are directed to pay enhanced
  compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.450 per
c Are for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-
  irrigated land with an additional amount of Rs.2 per
  square meter. The appellant is also held entitled to other
  statutory benefits like solatium and interest. Although, the
  other landowners were not shown to have prosecuted
  the matter further except that three of them filed appeals
0
  under Section 54 of the Act, Court while exercising its
  power under Article 142 of the Constitution directed the
  respondents to pay enhanced compensation, solatium
  etc. even to those who did not file appeals before the
  High Court and/or have not approached this Court by
E filing petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
  Therefore, the other landowners would also be paid
  enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits
  within .three months. [paras 15-17) [1057-B-H; 1058-A]

F      Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer
  AIR 1961 SC 1500: 1962 SCR 676; State of Punjab v. Qaisar
  Jehan Begum AIR 1963 SC 1604: 1964 SCR 971; Bhagwan
  Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 545: 2010 (2)
  SCR 1145; B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR
G 682; Bhupinderpa/ Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
  others (2000) 5 SCC 262; Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias La/ita
  V. State of Orissa and others (1993) 2 sec 746: 1993 (2)
  SCR 581; B. Prabhakar Rao and others v. State of Andhra
  Pradesh 1985 (Supp) SCC 432 - relied on.
H
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                  1047


    Special Land Acquisition Officer, Himatnagar v. Nathaji      A
Kacharaji, 2001 (3) GLH 312 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:
    2001 (3) GLH 312            referred to         Para 6
                                                                 B
    1962 SCR 676                relied on           Para 12

    1964 SCR 971                relied on           Para 13

    2010 (2) SCR 1145           relied on           Para 14

    (1966) 3 SCR 682            relied on           Para 17      c
    (2000) 5 sec 262            relied on            Para 17

    1993 (2) SCR 581            relied on            Para 17
    1985 (Supp) sec 432         relied on            Para 17     D
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3430 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.8.2011 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3502 of        E
2009.

    K.L. Dave, Rashmikumar Manila! Vithlani for the Appellant.

    Preetesh Kapur, Jesal, Hemantika Wahi for the
Respondents.                                                     F

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether the application submitted by
the appellant under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,   G
1894 (for short, 'the Act') was barred by time and Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Junagadh (hereinafter described as the
'Reference Court') rightly refused to entertain his prayer for
enhancement of the compensation determined by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer is the question which arises for        H
    1048    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A consideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated
  16.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High
  Court.

       2. The appellant's land was acquired by the State
  Government along with other parcels of land for implementation
8
  of Mendarda - Amrapur Road Scheme. Notification under
  Section 4(1) was issued on 4.3.1982 and the declaration under
  Section 6(1) was published on 7.10.1982. The Special Land
  Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation at
  the rate of Rs.110/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/- per
C Are for non-irrigated land.

          3. After passing of the award, the Collector issued notice
    to the appellant under Section 12(2), which was received by
    him on 22.2.1985. Similar notices were received by the other
D   landowners on 22.2.1985 and 23.2.1985. As the copy of the
    award was not annexed with the notice, the appellant obtained
    certified copy thereof through his Advocate and then submitted
    an application dated 8.4.1985 to the Collector for making a
    reference to the Court for award of higher compensation with
E   solatium and interest. The reference made by the Collector in
    the appellant's case was registered as LR Case No.1/2000.
    The references made at the instance of the other landowners
    were registered as LR Cases Nos.2/2000 to 15/2000. In their
    claim petitions, the appellant and other landowners pleaded that
F   their land had irrigation facilities; that they were taking crops
    of groundnut, wheat, fodder etc. and they are entitled to
    compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are. In the reply filed
    on behalf of the State Government, it was pleaded that the
    Special Land Acquisition Officer had correctly fixed market
G   value of the acquired land after taking into consideration the
    location, type and fertility of the acquired land. It was also
    pleaded that the landowners are not entitled to higher
    compensation because they had accepted the award without
    any protest.

H        4. It is not clear from the record whether in the reply filed
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                     1049
                [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

on behalf of the State Government, an objection was taken to         A
the maintainability of the applications filed by the appellant and
other landowners on the ground that the same were barred by
time but the Reference Court did frame an issue in that regard.
This is evident from the tenor of the issues framed by the
Reference Court, which are extracted below:                          B

      "(1) Whether applicant proves that the compensation
           awardedis inadequate ? How much ?

      (2)   What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled
            ·~?                                                      c
      (3)   Whether this application is in time ?

      (4)   Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this
            reference case ?
                                                                     D
      (5)   Whether this reference case is barred by S. 25 of
            L.A. Act.?

      (6)   Whether the applicants have accepted the
            awarded amount without raising any objection ? If        E
            yes, what is the effect ?

      (7)   Whether the applicant is entitled to get the amount
            of solatium & interest?

      (8)   What order ?"                                            F

     5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the parties, the Reference Court concluded that
the landowners are entitled to Rs.450 per Are for the irrigated
land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land with an additional    G
amount of Rs.2 per square meter, but declined relief to the
appellant and other landowners on the ground that the
applications filed by them were beyond the time specified in
Section 18(2)(b) of the Act.

     6. The appellant and three other landowners challenged          H
    1050   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A the judgment of the Reference Court by filing appeals under
  Section 54 of the Act which were dismissed by the !earned
  Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 16.8.2011,
  who relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court
  in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Himatnagar v. Nathaji
B Kacharaji, 2001 (3) GLH 312 and held that the applications filed
  by the appellant and other land owners were barred by time.

       7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
  application filed by his client was within the period prescribed
  under Section 18 (2)(b) of the Act and the Reference Court and
C the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious
  error by refusing to enhance the compensation by erroneously
  thinking that the application made on 8.4.1985 was barred by
  time. He submitted that 5th and 6th April, 1985 were holidays
  and, as such, the application filed by the appellant on 8.4.1985
D could not have been treated as barred by time. Learned
  counsel further submitted that due to hyper-technical approach
  adopted by the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge,
  the landowners have been rendered remediless.

E      8. Shri Preetesh Kapur, learned counsel for the
  respondents produced copy of the calendar of Gujarat for 1985
  to show that 5th April was holiday being Good Friday but 6th
  April was a working day and argued that if the period of six
  weeks is counted from the date of receipt of the notice issued
F under Section 12(2), the conclusion recorded by the Reference
  Court and the learned Single Judge that the applications filed
  by the appellant and other landowners were beyond the time
  prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act cannot be faulted.

      9. We have considered the respective arguments and
G carefully perused the record. Sections 12 and 18 of the Act,
  which have bearing on the decision of this appeal read as
  under:

        "12. Award of Collector when to be final. - (1) Such award
H       shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                    1051
                [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

     hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as    A
     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 the
     apportionment of the compensation among the persons
     interested.                                                   B

     (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.
                                                                   c
     18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who
    has not accepted the award may, by written application to
    the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
    Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his
    objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount        D
    of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or
    the apportionment of the compensation among the
    persons interested.

     (2) The application shall state the grounds on which          E
     objection to the award is taken:

     Provided that every such application shall be made,-

    (a) if the person making it was present or represented
    before the Collector at the time when he made his award,       F
    within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

    (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
    notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2),
    or within six months from the date of the Collector's award,   G
    whichever period shall first expire."

      10. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows
that by virtue of Section 12(1), an award made by the Collector
is treated final and conclusive evidence of the true area and
value of the land and apportionment of the compensation            H
    1052   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 3 S.C.R.


A among the persons interested. In terms of Section 12(2), the
  Collector is required to give notice of his award to the
  interested persons who are not present either personally or
  through their representatives at the time of making of award.
  Section 18(1) provides for making of reference by the Collector
B to the Court for the determination of the amount of
  compensation etc. Section 18(2) lays down that an application
  for reference shall be made within six weeks from the date of
  the Collector's award, if at the time of making of award the
  person seeking reference was present or was represented
c before the Collector. If the person is not present or is not
  represented before the Collector, then the application for
  reference has to be made within six weeks of the receipt of
  notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date
  of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
D      11. The reason for providing six months from the date of
  the award for making an application seeking reference, where
  the applicant did not receive a notice under Section 12(2) of
  the Act, while providing only six weeks from the date of receipt
  of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act for making an
E application for reference where the applicant has received a
  notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is obvious. When a notice
  under Section 12(2) of the Act is received, the landowner or
  person interested is made aware of all relevant particulars of
  the award which enables him to decide whether he should seek
F reference or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know
  that an award has been made, he would require further time to
  make enquiries or secure copies so that he can ascertain the
  relevant particulars of the award. What needs to be emphasised
  is that along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the
G Act, 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 Section 18(1) to seek reference to the Court.

        12. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition
H
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                        1053
                [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, this Court was called upon to                A
decide whether the expression 'date of award' is to be
interpreted with reference to the time when the award is signed
by the Collector or from the date the affected party comes to
know about the same and held as under:
                                                                        B
    ''Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law no
    more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to
    the owner of the property then the making of the award as
    properly understood must involve the communication of the
    offer to the party concerned. That is the normal requirement        C
    under the contract law and its applicability to cases of
    award made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded.
    Thus considered the date of the award cannot be
    determined solely by reference to the time when the award
    is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office;
    it must involve the consideration of the question as to when        D
    it was known to the party concerned either actually or
    constructively. If that be the true position then the literal and
    mechanical construction of the words 'the date of the
    award' occurring in the relevant section would not be
    appropriate.                                                        E

    There is yet another point which leads to the same
    conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative
    decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation
    of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the          F
    said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of
    the property and in that sense, like all decisions which
    affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said
    decision should be communicated to the said party. The
    knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either          G
    actual or constructive, is an essential element which must
    be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force.
    Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist
    merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing
    it or even filing it in the Office of the Collector; it must        H
    1054   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A      involve the communication of the said award to the party
       concerned either actually or constructively. If the award
       is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights
       are affected by it it can be said to be made when
       pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award
B      is communicated to the party and it is accordingly
       pronounced on the date previously announced the award
       is said to be communicated to the said party even if the
       said party is not actually present on the date of its
       pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its
c      pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not
        present the award can be said to be made when it is
       communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the
        party affected by the award, either actual or constructive,
        being an essential requirement of fair play and natural
       justice the expression 'the date of the award' used in the
D
        proviso must mean the date when the award is either
        communicated to the party or is known by him either
        actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would
        be unreasonable to construe the words 'from the date of
        the Collector's award' used in the proviso to Section 18
E
        in a literal or mechanical way."

                                                (emphasis supplied)

      13. In State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963
F SC 1604, the principle laid down in Harish Chandra's case
  was reiterated and it was held:

       "It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish
       Chandra case is that the party affected by the award must
       know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six
G      months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now,
       knowledge of the award does not mean a mere
       knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The
       knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the
       award. These contents may be known either actually or
H      constructively. If the award is communicated to a party
       PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                     1055
                [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

    under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be                A
    obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the
    award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party
    is present in court either personally or through his
    representative when the award is made by the Collector,
    it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the            B
    award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think
    that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the
    essential contents of the award."

                                           (emphasis supplied)       C

     14. In Bhagwan Oas v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3
SCC 545, this Court interpreted Section 18 and laid down the
following propositions:

    "(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person          0
    interested (or his authorised representative), he has to
    make the application within six weeks from the date of the
    Collector's award itself.

    (ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person
    interested (or his authorised representative), he has to         E
    make the application seeking reference within six weeks
    of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section
    12(2).

    (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not   F
    present when the award is made, and if he does not
    receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector,
    he has to make the application within six months of the
    date on which he actually or constructively came to know
    about the contents of the award.                                 G

    (iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section
    12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date
    of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the
    provision for six months for making the application on the
    ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section          H
    1056   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 3 S.C.R.


A      12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents
       of the award."

       The Court then held:

       "When a person interested makes an application for
B      reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from
       the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove
       that he (or his representative) was not present when the
       award was made, that he did not receive any notice under
       Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the
c      knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of
       six months prior to the filing the application for reference.
       This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath.
       He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial
       onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is
D      for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the
       person interested was present either in person or through
       his representative when the award was made, or that he
       had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or
       that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
E
       Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the
       award can be established by the Collector by proving that
       the person interested had received or drawn the
       compensation amount for the acquired land, or had
       attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering
F      possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the
       acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or
       had acknowledged the making of the award in any
       document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person
       interested, not being in possession of the acquired land
G      and the name of the State or its transferee being entered
       in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can
       also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the
       absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim
       of the person interested that he did not have knowledge
H
        PREMJI NATHU v. STATE OF GUJARAT                    1057
                 [GS. SINGHVI, J.]

     earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling          A
     circumstances not to do so."

      15. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the
conclusion recorded by the Reference Court, which has been
approved by the High Court that the application filed by the        8
appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable. A careful
reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the
application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that
the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was
served upon him on 22.2.1985. Thereafter, his advocate              C
obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated
8.4.1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that
copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant along with
the notice and without that he could not have effectively made
an application for seeking reference. On behalf of the State
Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference           D
Court to show that copy of the award was sent to the appellant
along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding issue No.3,
this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court
which mechanically concluded that the application filed on
8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b).         E
The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed
serious error by approving the view taken by the Reference·
Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice issued
by the Collector under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by
a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise      F
of right vested in the appellant to seek reference under Section
18(1 ).

      16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court are            G
set aside and the respondents are directed to pay enhanced
compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.450 per Are
for the irrigated land and Rs.280 per Are for non-irrigated land
with an additional amount of Rs.2 per square meter. The
appellant shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits like
                                                                    H
    1058    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A solatium and interest. The respondent shall calculate the
  amount payable to the appellant and make payment within three
  months from today.

        17. Although, the other landowners are not shown to have
  prosecuted lhe matter further except that three of them filed
8
  appeals under Section 54 of the Act, we are convinced that this
  is a fit case in which the Court should exercise power under
  Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to pay
  enhanced compensation, solatium etc. even to those who did
  not file appeals before the High Court and/or have not
C approached this Court by filing petitions under Article 136 of
  the Constitution. This approach is consistent with the judgments
  of this Court in - 8. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore (1966) 3
  SCR 682, Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab
  and others (2000) 5 SCC 262, Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias
D Lalila v. State of Orissa and others (1993) 2 SCC 746 and B.
  Prabhakar Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1985
  (Supp) SCC 432. Therefore, we direct that the other
   landowners shall also be paid enhanced compensation and
  other statutory benefits within three months from today.
E
    D.G.                                         Appeal allowed.