Holding

A notice under Section 12(2) need not contain all details of the award; the limitation period under Section 18(2) begins from the date the notice is received.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed against Sh. Satinder Bir Singh, who had received compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but later filed an application for reference to the civil court beyond the prescribed period. The High Court had held that the notice under Section 12(2) was invalid because it did not contain full details of the award, and therefore the limitation period under Section 18(2) did not start. The Supreme Court examined whether a notice under Section 12(2) must disclose all particulars of the award and when the limitation period begins. It held that the notice need not contain the entire award details; the limitation period starts from the date the notice is received, irrespective of its content. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, though the respondent had already lost the right to reference.

Issues considered

Whether a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must contain all details of the award, including the consideration and method of determination, for the limitation period under Section 18(2) to commence.
Whether the limitation period for filing an application under Section 18(2) begins from the receipt of the notice irrespective of the notice’s content.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 12, s. 12(2), s. 18, s. 18(2), s. 31

Subjects

Land acquisitionNotice under Section 12Limitation periodSection 18 reference applicationCompensation awardStatutory interpretation

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. A
v.
SH. SATINDER BIR SINGH

FEBRUARY 22, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 11, 12, 18-Notice under
S.12(2)-Whether should contain all the details of the award-Held : No.

In this appeal, the question that arose for consideration was whether C
the High Court was right in its conclusion that the notice under s.12(2) of
/ the Land Acquisition Act should contain all the details of the award.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order, this
Court D

HELD : 1• ..:. is not necessary that the notice under S.12 of the Land
Acquisition Act should contain all the details of the award including his
consideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as
opined by the Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent· that the E
interested person should immediately' make the reference application on
his receiving compensation under s. 31. The receipt of the amount and
making the reference application are not simultaneous. The statutory
operation of limitation mentioned by s. 18(2) does not depend on· the
/
ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when
the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begilfs' to
F
operate from the moment the notice under s.12(2) is recdved ot as
envisaged bys. 18(2). (258-F-G]

2. The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The
area acquired was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the Judge G
was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain all the
details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has been
determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limitation
did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of !Jl.e notice and thereby
the rejection of the application was not legal. (258-H, 259-A] H
255
,
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1607 of
1978.

From the Judgment and E>rder dated 25.4.77 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 512 of 1973.

B G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansal for the Appellants.

AP. Mohanty and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge
C of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated April 25, 1977 made in Civil
Revision Application No. 512/73. The facts lie in a short compass for
deciding the controversy. They are :

Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for
D short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on 15.1.1970 acquiring
40 kanals 17 marlas of land situated in Mohali village, Tehsil Kharar,
District Ropar in Punjab for public purpose. The Collector made bis award
under s.11 of the Act on 1.3.1970. He issued notice under s.12(2) and it \.,
was received by the respondent 0n 22.9.1970. He appeared and received
compens::.tion under protest on 29.9.1970. Thereafter, he made an applica-
E tfon under s.18 on 21.1.1971 seeking reference to the Civil Court. The
Collector by his proceedings dated 12.1.1973 had rejected the application
as being barred by limitation. Calling in question the order, the respondent
filed revision in the High Court under s.115 provided under the local
Amendment Act, 1954 by sub-s. (3) of s.18 of the Act. The High Court
allowed the revision holding that though the respondent had received the
F notice on September 22, 1970, the notice did not contain all the details as ' .....
to how market value of the land was evaluated; the respondent was not in
a position to know the deter~ation of the compensation for making an
application for reference under s.18. Therefore, it is not a proper notice
and the limitation prescribed under s.18(2) has no applica~on.
G The only question that arises for consideration is whether the High
Court was right in its conclusion that the notice issued under s.12(2) should
contain all the details of the award.· Section 11 of the Act contemplates that
while making the award the Collector needs to determine (i) the true area
of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed
H for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation amoiig
STA1EOFPB.v. S.B.SINGH 257

all the persons known or believed t~ be interested in the land, of whom, A
or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respec-
tively appeared before. him.

Section 12 provides that the award shall be filed in the Collector's
office and shall, except as provided in the Act, be final and conclusive
evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether B
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. Sub-s. (2) of s.12 mandates that the Collec-
tor "shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons
interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when C
the award is made".

Section 18 of the Act gives right to the owner or interested person
who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collec-
tor, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determina-
tion of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, D
the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested .
. ./
Sub-s. (2) of s. 18 is relevant which reads thus :

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to E
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, within six weeks F
/
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 s.12, sub-s. (2), or within six months from
the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first G
expire.

It would thus be clear that the interested person who had received
the compensation under protest is required to state in his application for
reference the grounds on which the objects to the compensation awarded
by the Collector, within six weeks from the date of the award when either H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.
'
A he was present or was represented by a counsel or agent, or within six
weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice from the Collector sent
under s.12(2), or within six months from the date of the award made by
the Collector whichever period should first expire. In this case since the
respondent had admittedly received the notice from the Collector under
s.12(2) on September 22, 1970, by operation of first part of clause (b) of
B the proviso to sub-s. (2) of s.18, the respondent was enjoined to make the
application under s.18 within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the
notice. Since admittedly, he did not make the application within six weeks,
it was barred by fuiritation.

C The question then is whether the notice under s.12(2) is a valid
notice. From a conjoint reading of ss. 11 and 12, it is clear that notice is
only an intimation of making of the award requiring thre owner or inter-
ested person to receive compensation awarded under s.11. On receipt of
the iioti,~. if the interested person receives compensation without protest,
D obvioUEly no reference need be made. The determination of compensation
becomes final and bin~ the parties. When he receives the compensation
under protest as contemplated under s.31 of the Act, the need to make the
application for reference under s.18(1) would arise. At that juncture it will
be open to the interested person either to make inspection of the award
which was conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub-s.
E (1) of s.12, or seek a certified copy of the award from the Collector and
the contents. Thereon he could make necessary objection for the deter-
mination inter alia, of compensation for the land. It is not necessary that
the notice should· c0ntain all the details of the award including his con-
sideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as opined
F by the learned Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent that the
interested person should immediately make the reference application on
his receiving compensation under s. 31. In other words receipt of the
amount and making the reference application are not simultaneous. The
statutoty operation of limitation mentioned by s. 18(2) does not depend on

G
the ministerial act, of communication of notice in any particular form when
the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to
op,erate from the moment the notice under s.12(2} is received or as
--.
envisaged by s.18 (2).
y
The notice in the present case contained the amount awarded. The
H area ~cqujred was not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the learned
STAIB OFPB. v. S.B. SINGH 259

Judge was clearly in error in holding that since the notice did not contain A
all the details of the consideration and as to how the compensation has
been determined, the notice was not a proper notice and therefore limita-
tion did not begin to run from the date of the receipt of the notice and
thereby the rejection of the application was not legal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is B
set aside. But unfortunately, in the circumstances, the respondent lost his
right of reference and we are helpless. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

,_ft' ..