Case Note & Summary
The case involves a first appeal filed by the heirs of the original claimant, Pagi Bhemaji Dhiraji (since deceased), challenging the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, District: Aravalli in Land Reference Case No.187 of 2024. The reference court had dismissed the reference on the ground of limitation. The appellants, represented by Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, contended that as per the Supreme Court decision in Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2012 SC 1624), the limitation period for filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 begins from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Since the claimant did not receive any such notice, the reference could not be barred by limitation. Additionally, the original claimant died during the proceedings, and the appellants, being his heirs, were unaware of the pendency of the reference, leading to their non-participation. The learned advocate argued that the reference court had a bounden duty to ascertain the correct market value of the acquired land even in the absence of the claimant. The respondent-State, represented by AGP Mr. Parth Patel, opposed the appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found merit in the appellants' submissions. The court held that the reference court erred in dismissing the reference on limitation grounds without considering the absence of notice under Section 12(2). The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the reference court for fresh consideration on merits, directing the reference court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18, 12(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation period for filing reference under Section 18 begins from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, not from the date of award - Where no such notice is served, the reference cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation - Held that the reference court erred in dismissing the reference on limitation grounds without considering the absence of notice under Section 12(2) (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference filed by the claimant was barred by limitation when no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served upon the claimant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024, and remanded the matter back to the reference court for fresh consideration on merits, directing the reference court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Law Points
- Limitation for reference under Land Acquisition Act begins from receipt of notice under Section 12(2)
- not from date of award
- Duty of reference court to ascertain correct market value even in absence of claimant
