Gujarat High Court
Bhalabhai Fatabhai Khant vs Additional Special Land Acquisition ... on 16 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 of 2025
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3539 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3729 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
BHALABHAI FATABHAI KHANT
Versus
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance FA NO.29 OF 2025
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO MS BHUMI GANDHI, ASST.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
Appearance FA NO.132 OF 2025
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO MS BHUMI GANDHI, ASST.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
Appearance FA NO.134 OF 2025
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO MS HIMANI SHAH, ASST.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 16/02/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Since the issue raised in the these appeals are Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of First Appeal No.29 of 2025 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2 The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' referred hereinafter) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and award dated 15.12.2023 passed in LAR No.178 of 2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shehra, District Panchmahals, whereby the learned Reference Court has dismissed the Reference on the ground of limitation.
Factual Matrix:
3 The land belonging to the claimant, situated at village Khatakpur, Taluka Shehra, District Panchmahals, came to be acquired by the opponents for the purpose of construction of a lake by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 08.07.1999. The award under Section 11(1) of the Act was thereafter passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18.02.2000, whereby the market value of the land under acquisition was determined at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination made by the Special Land Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Acquisition Officer, the claimant preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act on 04.10.2000, which came to be referred to the learned Reference Court on 24.03.2003. The learned Reference Court, while adjudicating the reference proceedings, framed the following issues and answered the same accordingly:
Issues:
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer is unfair and inadequate?
Answer is Affirmative.
(2) If yes, what should be the amount of additional compensation to be awarded to the claimants? Answer is Affirmative.
(3) Whether the opponents prove that the reference filed by the applicants is barred by limitation? Answer is Affirmative.
(4) What order and award?
Answer is as per final order.
3.1 Though the learned Reference Court answered the issue regarding the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer being unfair Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined and inadequate in the affirmative and proceeded to determine the additional compensation, the reference proceedings ultimately came to be rejected on the ground that the reference was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The said finding on limitation is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court.
4 Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.V. Kansara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for respondent No.2 and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for respondent-State.
Submissions on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant:
5 Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that the learned Reference Court committed a serious error in framing additional issues on 14.09.2022 after the parties had already filed their respective closing pursis on 16.12.2022. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara further submitted that when the issues were initially framed, no issue with regard to limitation was framed. In absence of such an issue, no opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence on the question of limitation. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kansara that the learned Reference Court, on its own, framed an issue regarding Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined limitation at a belated stage and thereafter proceeded to dismiss the Reference by holding that the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Reference Court held that since the claimant had received the compensation on the very date of the award, i.e. 18.02.2000, the claimant had knowledge of the award. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that it was specifically pleaded in the reference application that the claimants were neither present at the time of the award nor had knowledge of the contents thereof, and that the said plea remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the opponents. Despite this, the learned Reference Court erroneously concluded that the claimant had constructive knowledge of the award.
5.1 It is further submitted that the award was passed on 18.02.2000, the certified copy thereof was applied on 23.03.2000 and was supplied on 31.08.2000. Within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy, the reference application under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed on 04.10.2000. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that even if it is assumed that the claimant had received the compensation amount, in absence of receipt of the certified copy of the Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined award, it cannot be presumed that the claimant had knowledge of the contents of the award. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Kansara that the learned Reference Court, while adjudicating the merits, held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.376.50 per square meter after deducting Rs.4.20 per square meter awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, despite such findings on merits, the Reference was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the compensation so determined is required to be granted to the claimants.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Kansara has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench rendered in the case of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. Sheshrao Baliram Ingole and others, wherein it is held that the burden lies on the acquiring authority to establish that the claimant had knowledge of the contents of the award and that despite such knowledge, the Reference was not filed within the period prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Kansara that in absence of production of notice under Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Section 12(2) of the Act, the acquiring authority has failed to discharge such burden. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR (1961) SC 1500, to contend that the expression "from the date of the Collector's award" must be construed to mean the date on which the claimant had knowledge of the essential contents of the award. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court committed an error in computing limitation from the date of the award itself, despite absence of proof regarding service of notice or knowledge of the contents of the award. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and the First Appeal be allowed.
6 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia, appearing for the opponent, submits that as the claimant had received the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act on the very same date i.e. 18.12.2000, a presumption can be drawn that the claimant was aware of the award. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Karia that since the application was not filed within six weeks from the said date, the learned Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Reference Court has rightly held that the Reference is barred by limitation. Therefore, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Reference Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 18 of the Act, and hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7 Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it emerges that, as per the details filled in the application under Section 18 of the Act while making the reference to the learned District Government Pleader, the following details were furnished:
"With reference to the above mentioned subject, it is to be informed that with regard to the matter mentioned in the subject, a reference has been filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the parties in this case vide their advocate Parimal D. Pathak, Resi : Godhara. It is requested to consider the following details and give your opinion as to whether the reference application of the parties filing the reference should be sent to the Learned Court or not ?
(1) Case Detail : Regarding land acquisition for
construction of lake at
Khatukpur village.
(2) Land Acquisition Award : Land Acquisition Case No. :
No. and Date 17/99, Date : 18/02/2000
(3) First Date of Compensation : 18/02/2000
Page 8 of 28
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
(4) Compensation payment : 18/02/2000
date
(5) Receiving date of : 23/03/2000
application demanding a
copy of the award
(6) Date of issuance of copy of : 31/08/2000
award
(7) Date of receiving land : 04/10/2000
reference application
(8) Total number of Land : 3 (Three)
Reference application
received in this case
Upon considering the aforementioned detail of the said case,as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the said Land Reference Applications can be considered as time barred and it is the opinion of this office that they are liable to be filed. Despite this, it is requested to send your opinion as to whether the said reference applications should be sent to the Learned Court or not ?
8 As per Form 'G', the compensation was received by the claimant under protest on 18.02.2000, therefore, the presence of the claimant at the time of passing of the award cannot be said to be in dispute. In that background, reference to Section 18 of the Act is required to be made, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"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 Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2)The application shall state the grounds on which 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, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors 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 Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire."
9 As per the said provision, if the person making the application is present or represented before the Collector at the time when the award is made, the limitation prescribed is six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. In this background, the moot question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the rejection of the application on the ground that it was not filed within a period of six weeks from the date of the Collector's award is just and proper?
The answer is in negative.
10 To determine the aforesaid question, reference is required to be made to the decision rendered by the Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), wherein it has been held as under:
"5.In the dealing with this question it is relevant to bear in mind the legal character of the award made by the Collector under S. 12. In a sense it is a decision of the Collector reached by him after holding an enquiry as prescribed by the Act. It is a decision, inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired; but legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition. If the owner accepts the offer no further proceeding is required to be taken; the amount is paid and compensation proceedings are concluded. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer, S. 18 gives him the statutory right of having the question determined by Court, and it is the amount of compensation which the Court may determine that would bind both the owner and the Collector. In that case it is on the amount thus determined judicially that the acquisition proceedings would be concluded. It is because of this nature of the award that the award can be appropriately described as a tender of offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property for his acceptance. In Ezra v. Secretary of State, ILR 30 Cal 36 at p. 86, it has been held that "the meaning to be attached to the word "award" under S.11 and its nature and effect must be arrived at not from the mere use of the same expression in both instances but from the examination of the provisions of the law relating to the Collector's proceedings culminating in the award. The consideration to which we have referred satisfy us that the Collector acts in the matter of the enquiry and the valuation of the land only as an agent of the Government and not as judicial office; and that consequently, although the Government Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined is bound by his proceedings, he persons interested are not concluded by his finding regarding the value of the land or the compensation to be awarded" Then the High Court has added that such tender once made is binding on the Government and the Government cannot require that the value fixed by its own officer acting on its behalf should be open to question at its own instance before the Civil Court. The said case was taken before the Privy Council in Ezra v. Secretary of State, ILR 32 Cal 605 (PC), and their Lordship have expressly approved of the observations made by the High Court to which we have just referred. 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 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 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.
6.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 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 Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either 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 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 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 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 fairplay and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the 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 in a literal or mechanical way.
7.In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the necessity of the Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined communication of the award to the party concerned. The legislature recognised that the making of the award under Section 11 followed by its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the requirements of justice before bringing the award into force. It thought that the communication of the award to the party concerned was also necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the view which we have taken about the construction of the expression "from the date of the Collector's award" in the proviso to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12 (2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature."
11 This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Heirs Of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr rendered in First Appeal No.2864 of 2019 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined
"12. In the case of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Deputy Collector(supra), the Division Bench of this Court, has held that reading the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 it suggests that there is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. Paragraph 3 of the Judgment, reads thus:-
"3. The question, therefore, is whether under sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, there is an obligation upon the Collector merely to intimate about the passing of the award or he is obliged to convey the matters contained in the award by serving either a copy of the award or the essential part of it. In State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the purpose of the notice under Sec. 12(2) in the context of a plea as to whether mere knowledge of the passing of the award would be sufficient as a starting point reckoned for the purpose of filing a reference application. It is in dealing with this that the Supreme Court observed:
"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 constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under Sec.12(2) of the Act, the party must be 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 Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined contents of the 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."
This Court has expressed the same view referring to the above said decision in Rasulkhanjiv. H. P. Rathod, (1975) 16 Guj LR
911. In this view, it is clear that there is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but he has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. That has not been fulfilled in this case and we direct that this shall be done within a month."
12 In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, mere presence of the claimant at the time of passing of the award cannot ipso facto be construed as having constructive knowledge of the contents of the award. Such knowledge can be attributed only from the date on which the claimant receives the copy of the award. In the present case, the copy of the award was received on 31.08.2000. Therefore, the knowledge of the contents of the award can be said to have accrued to the claimant only from the said date. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the period of limitation would commence from 31.08.2000 and not from the date of the award itself.
13 At this stage, reference of the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co.Ltd (supra) is Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined required to be made wherein the Bombay High Court has framed two questions that whether what should be the starting point of limitation as prescribed under clause (a) and (b) of the proviso below sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and upon whom the burden of proof lies to establish that Reference under section 18 of the Act is barred by law. It is held as under:
"As to Question No. (ii) :
47. The Court, acting under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has to determine the objections as regards (i) the true area of the land, (ii) the compensation, which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the land, and (iii) the apportionment of compensation amongst all the persons to whom it is payable or the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Such an award passed under section 11 of the said Act is merely an offer for compensation by the Collector. The offer has to be communicated to the persons having a right to receive compensation. A statutory right to approach the Court for determination of the market value of the land, provided under section 18 of the said Act, accrues only upon communication of the essential contents of the award. The limitation prescribed under section 18 of the said Act, therefore, starts running from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
48. Section 18 of the said Act provides an opportunity to raise grounds on which the objection to the award is taken and it confers a power upon the Court, rather than the Collector, to determine the market value of the land under acquisition. This opportunity to raise objection is not an empty formality, but it is for Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined effectively exercising the fundamental right under the second proviso below clause (1) of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India for determination by the Court of the true market value of the land under acquisition.
Such a fundamental right cannot be effectively exercised without knowing actually or constructively the essential contents of the award, i.e. the mode, manner and the basis of determination of the offer received from the Collector. In the absence of such knowledge, no protest can be raised, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 18 of the said Act, and there is no jurisdiction with the Collector or the Court, acting under section 18, to permit the amendment of the Reference to raise additional grounds or additional compensation after getting knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
49. The very object of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the said Act to give notice of award only to such persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made, is to enable them to raise effective objections to such award to have a market value of their land under acquisition. Otherwise, it would produce curious result of making ineffective this right, and such result could not possibly have been intended by the Legislature, as observed by the Apex Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh's case, cited supra.
50. Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, it will have to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case the date from which the period of limitation prescribed under clauses
(a) and (b) of the proviso below sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act shall start running. The question No. (i) is, therefore, answered accordingly.
Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined As to Question No. (ii) :
51. Coming to the second question of law regarding burden of proof, no doubt the normal principle is that the burden to prove that the claim is within limitation is upon the person or party, who comes before the Court, to establish it and it is only upon leading evidence that the onus shall shift upon the respondent or the other side. The Apex Court in the cases of Laxman Lal and K. P. Plantation Private Limited has held, as has been pointed out in the initial paras, that it is the constitutional obligation upon the State to pay the compensation at a rate which is not less than the market value of the land, as prescribed under the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, for the State to justify its stand that all the steps, as are required to be taken under sub-section (2) of section 12 read with section 18 of the said Act, have been followed, and that the claimant has failed to approach the Court within the time prescribed under clause (a) and (b) below proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the Collector or the State wanted to prevent the claimant from seeking enforcement of constitutional obligation or fundamental right, then the initial burden is upon it to make out a case by necessary pleadings and proof by leading evidence to show that the claim is barred by the law of limitation, as prescribed under clauses (a) and (b) below sub- section (2) of section 18 of the said Act, which shall be subject to evidence in rebuttal.
52. Even the language of the clauses (a) and (b) below sub-section (2) of section 18 of the said Act requires the Collector to establish the fact that the claimant, as contemplated by clause (a), was present or represented before him at the time when the award was made, and in other cases covered by clause (b), that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of the essential Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined contents of the award and that the reference was not preferred within a period of six weeks or six months, as the case may be, from the date of such knowledge. The Collector being in custody of the entire record, it is for him to plead and prove that the reference preferred under section 18 of the said Act was barred by the law of limitation. It is, therefore, for the State, acting through the Collector, to discharge its burden if it wanted to deny a fundamental right to the claimant to get the market value of the land acquired determined by the Court, by seeking reference under section 18 of the said Act.
53. It is not expected from the claimant to plead and prove the negative facts that he was not present or was not represented before the Collector when the award was made, as contemplated by clause (a) below sub- section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, or any other cases covered by clause (b) therein, that he was not having the actual or constructed knowledge of the essential contents of the award so as to prefer a reference under section 18 of the said Act either within a period of six weeks or within a period of six months, as the case may be. No doubt, that it would be advisable for the claimant to make such pleading in the reference petition under section 18 of the said Act, but absence of such pleading would not be enough to deprive the claimant of a right to seek a reference for compensation at a market value of the land under acquisition. The question No. (ii) is answered accordingly.
54. On the question of limitation, the specific averment in para 10 of the reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition in the present case is as under:
"10. The applicant came to know about the passing of award on receipt of notice under section 12(2) of Land Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Acquisition Act on 28-6-1990 and 10-7-1990. However, he was not aware about the contents of the award. He received the certified copy of the order on 24-7-1990 and at that time they got full knowledge of the contents of the award. The application is within time. The compensation amount has been received by the applicant under protest."
The Collector at whose instance the land was acquired, had raised the question of limitation and the appellant was cross-examined. The relevant portion of which, is reproduced below:
"The award was passed on 2-5-1990. I have filed copy of Award on record. It is at Ex.35. I had gone through the contents of the same. Its contents are correct. It is not correct to say that the reference application filed by me was out of limitation. It is not correct to say that the case is not tenable in this Court."
The appellant has been extensively cross-examined by the Collector but not on the point of limitation. It is, therefore, amply proved that though the award was passed on 2-5-1990, the claimant got the knowledge of the essential contents of the award upon receiving the certified copy on 24-701990 and the reference was preferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 8-8-1990, which was within a period of six months from the date of the knowledge of the essential contents of the award. It was, therefore, perfectly within the period of limitation.
As to Point Nos. (c) and (d):
55. In paras 10 and 14, the Reference Court has held that the market value of the land acquired is required to be determined at the rate of 10.50 per square foot, whereas in para 21, the Reference Court has held that the market value of the land acquired was 8.50 per Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined square foot, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of 9,25,630/- per hectare (in the operative portion, the compensation is granted at the rate of 9,25,650/- per hectare). The reliance is placed upon Exhibits 28 and 29, which are the letters said to have been issued by the Tahsildar in the Office of Collector of Stamps and Valuation at Chandrapur, which show the consideration of 15,000/- for sale of 278.73 sq.mtrs., Plot No. 23 in Survey No. 76/2. Exhibit 30 relied upon is also the communication by the Deputy Registrar (Stamps), addressed to third person, calling upon him to pay the stamp duty on the valuation of land at 1,380/-.
None of these three documents at Exhibits 28, 29 and 30 can be considered as an evidence to determine the market value of the land Survey No. 76/2-A, which is under acquisition.
56. Be that as it may, if the value of the land in Exhibit 28 is to be taken into consideration, it is of 15,000/- for sale of 278.73 sq.mtrs. of land, which is equivalent to 3,000 sq.ft., the rate would be 5/- per square foot. Exhibit 30, the communication, does not indicate either the land survey number or the area in respect of which the valuation of 3,180/- is shown. Hence, it is not relevant for determination of compensation. Except this, there is no other document relied upon by the Reference Court to grant the enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court has, therefore, committed an error in enhancing the compensation to 9,25,650/- without there being any evidence in support of it.
57. The Reference Court has referred to the document at Exhibit 93, which is the sale index, showing sale of 3,400 sq.ft. of land for 3,400/- on 19-6-1984. The another portion of the same land having area of 3,000 Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined sq.ft. was sold for 3,000/- on 27-11-1984. These sale indices indicate the value of the land at the rate of Re.1/- per square foot. Even if 10% is added towards increase per year, the amount would not exceed the rate of 1.70 per square foot. If the market value is calculated at this rate in respect of the land under acquisition, then it would certainly be less than 1,75,000/- per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court has, therefore, committed an error in granting enhancement, ignoring the rate reflected by Exhibit 93, the sale index in respect of the same land. If the market value of the land in question is to be determined by assuming that it is the non- agricultural land, then necessary deduction on account of development will also have to be considered. All such aspects are ignored by the Reference Court. The enhancement granted cannot, therefore, be sustained.
58. Shri Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, has urged that the appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board (now Maharashtra State Power General Company Limited) had failed to file written statement to oppose the claim for enhancement of compensation made in the reference. He has, therefore, urged that the appellant was not entitled to file an appeal challenging such enhancement. The contention cannot be accepted. It is for the claimant to establish the entitlement for the market value of the land. Even if the appellant had failed to file written statement opposing the claim for enhancement, that by itself would not be enough to deny the appellant the right of appeal, which is available in law, as provided under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is entitled to point out to the Court that the claimant has to stand on his legs, and in the absence of any evidence in support of the findings recorded, the appellant is entitled to challenge such findings by filing an appeal. The appeal cannot be dismissed on that Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined ground, and the contention is, therefore, rejected.
59. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30-4-2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 28 of 1991, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 28 of 1991 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
60. It is informed that the appellant has deposited in this Court the entire decretal amount of 38,38,618/-. The claimant is permitted to withdraw certain amount upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court, and the claimant has actually withdrawn such amount. In view of this, the claimant is directed to re-deposit the amount so withdrawn, in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to enforce the security so furnished to get the amount realized along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of withdrawal till its redeposit. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount lying in deposit in this Court along with interest, if any accrued thereon.
61. At this stage, Shri Maheshwari, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant, seeks stay of the aforesaid portion of the order permitting the appellant to enforce the security to realize the amount so withdrawn. In view of the fact that this Court has already granted the claimant six weeks' time for re- deposit of the amount in this Court, the question of enforcing the order for a period of eight weeks by the appellant does not arise. Hence, the request of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant for stay of the order is rejected.
Appeal allowed."
Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined 14 In the case on hand, the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed on 04.10.2000 and, therefore, it can safely be said that the same was filed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the award. Additionally, on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, more particularly the examination-in-chief of the claimant at Exhibit 21, it is specifically contended in paragraph 2 thereof that the award was neither within the knowledge of the claimant nor was a copy of the award supplied to the claimant at the time of passing of the award. It is further contended that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was ever served upon the claimant and that only upon receiving the certified copy of the award on 31.08.2000, the Reference Application came to be filed on 04.10.2000. During the course of cross-examination, the witness has categorically admitted that the copy of the award was not received by the claimant. Undisputedly, the amount of compensation received by the claimant was under
protest, as reflected from the reference made by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer. On referring to the evidence of the opponent examined at Exhibit 36, it is contended that the Reference Application filed on 04.10.2000 bears a forged signature of the claimant and, therefore, the application is not maintainable. It is further contended that since the Reference Application was filed beyond the time stipulated under Section 18 of the Act, the same deserves to be rejected on the ground of limitation. However, during cross-examination, the said Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined witness has admitted that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon the claimant and no evidence has been produced to suggest that the claimant had received a copy of the award prior to 31.08.2000. It is also admitted that the certified copy of the award was received only on 31.08.2000 and thereafter the Reference Application under Section 18 of the Act was filed on 04.10.2000. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Laxman Lal (Dead) through LRs. and Anr v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, reported in AIR (2013) SC 1578 wherein the Apex Court has held that if the Collector or the State wanted to prevent the claimant for seeking the enforcement of constitutional obligation or the fundamental rights, then initial burden is upon it to make out the case by necessary pleadings or proof that claim is barred by limitation. However, when the claimant did not get the knowledge of the contents of the award and State is unable to rebut that contention then limitation cannot be said to be begun from the date of award.
15 It is also required to be noted herein that, as per the closing pursis filed below Exhibit 41 on 24.11.2022, both the parties had declared that they did not wish to adduce any further evidence on record. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.09.2023, the learned Reference Court recorded that upon perusal of the record, the following issue was framed:
"Whether the opponent proves that Reference filed by Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined the claimant is hit by the limitation?"
The said issue came to be framed after the closing pursis was filed by both the parties. The approach adopted by the learned Reference Court in framing the issues after completion of evidence is de hors the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it is the bounden duty of the learned Court to frame the issues as per Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure after completion of the pleadings i.e. plaint and written statement. If one party denied the allegation the allegations made in the plaint, under such circumstances it for the learned Court to proceed proceed under Rule I Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure to call for the evidence after framing the issues. Learned Court has adjudicated the procedure contrary to the settled mode of trial, on this ground also the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The object of the Act is to ensure payment of fair and reasonable compensation to persons who are deprived of their valuable lands under compulsory acquisition, and such beneficial legislation ought to be interpreted in a manner advancing its purpose rather than defeating substantive rights on hyper-technical grounds.
16 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of awarding compensation in accordance with the market value so determined, the learned Reference Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the Reference Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined solely on the ground of limitation, and that too without adhering to the due procedure prescribed under the Act. Such an approach defeats the very object of the Land Acquisition Act, which is to ensure just and fair compensation to persons whose lands are compulsorily acquired. In the aforesaid background, the present First Appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the market value of the acquired land as determined by the learned Reference Court at the rate of Rs.376.50 per square meter is required to be awarded to the claimant, along with all consequential statutory benefits as admissible under law.
17 Resultantly, the First Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 15.12.2023 passed in LAR No.178 of 2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shehra, District Panchmahals, are hereby set aside. The opponent is directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.376.50 per square meter, after deducting the amount already paid, along with all statutory benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings forthwith.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:00:06 IST 2026