Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Raju and Dnyaneshwar Rawale, were landowners whose land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for a minor irrigation project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.8.1998, and issued a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 14.10.1998, informing the appellants of the award and calling them to collect compensation. The appellants claimed they never received this notice; instead, they learned of the award on 15.10.1998 from one Narayan Pathak, on whom the notice had been served. They applied for a certified copy of the award on 18.10.1998 and filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act on 25.11.1998. The reference court (L.A.C. No.1/2001) dismissed the reference as barred by limitation, holding that limitation started from 14.10.1998 (the date of notice) or at least from 15.10.1998 (the date of knowledge), and that the reference filed on the 43rd or 44th day was beyond the 42-day period prescribed under Section 18(2). The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the original record and found that the notice under Section 12(2) was not served on the appellants personally; it was served on Narayan Pathak. The court held that knowledge from a third party does not constitute official information under Section 18(2), and the starting point of limitation should be the date of actual knowledge, which needed to be determined. The High Court also noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act and General Clauses Act do not apply to the special limitation under the Land Acquisition Act, but the date of knowledge could be excluded. The court set aside the reference court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the question of limitation, directing the reference court to determine the actual date of knowledge and compute limitation accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18(2) read with Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Computation of Limitation - The reference court held the reference barred by limitation, but the High Court found that the notice under Section 12(2) was not served on the appellants; knowledge from a third party does not constitute official information under Section 18(2). The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the question of limitation, directing the reference court to determine the actual date of knowledge and compute limitation accordingly. (Paras 6-9) B) Land Acquisition - Exclusion of Time - General Clauses Act, 1887 - Applicability - The High Court noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act and General Clauses Act do not apply to the special limitation period under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per settled law. However, the date of knowledge may be excluded if it is not the date of official notice. (Paras 3-4, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation, and whether the reference court erred in computing limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the reference court, and remanded the matter to the reference court for fresh consideration on the question of limitation. The reference court was directed to determine the actual date of knowledge of the award to the appellants and compute limitation accordingly.
Law Points
- Limitation for reference under Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18(2) starts from date of official notice under Section 12(2) or actual knowledge
- whichever is earlier
- provisions of Limitation Act and General Clauses Act do not apply
- time for obtaining certified copy not excluded
- but date of knowledge may be excluded if not official.
