Smt. Laleemma @ Lalithamma and Others vs The Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition Officer

Subhashan Reddy, J.—The point raised in this writ petition is as to whether there is a necessity of issuance of notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the Act") to the Claimants, even though the amount is not awarded in their favour but the matter is referred to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the Act by making deposit of the award amount as contemplated u/s 31(2) thereof. To meet the contention of the petitioners that Section 12(2) notice was not issued, the respondent filed a counter stating in paragraph 2 thereof, that notice u/s 12(2) of the Act was not issued as the compensation amount was deposited in the Court pursuant to the reference made u/s 30 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that the limitation for making an application for reference u/s 18 of the Act runs from the date of Section 12(2) Notice, if the awardees are not present at the time of passing the award.

In so far as the fact that the respondent did not contend that the petitioners were present at the time of passing the award but they assert that a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act was not required to be issued as the amount was not paid to the petitioner as the reference u/s 30 of the Act was made. The limitation for filing an application u/s 18 of the Act, is two months from the date of receipt of Section 12(2) Notice. Section 12(2) of the Act does not make any distinction between the payment of compensation to the awardee or a reference to the Court u/s 30 of the Act followed by deposit thereto. Section 12(2) of the Act is emphatic, clear and unambiguous to the effect that the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) shall give immediate notice of this Award to such of those persons interested who are not present personally or by their representatives, when the award is made. As such irrespective of the fact that amount is not awarded to the claimants and that the same is referred to Civil Court u/s 30 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice to the claimants as contemplated u/s 12(2) of the Act.

In the instant case, as there is failure on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to comply with the said legislative mandate, the question of time bar in seeking reference u/s 18 of the Act does not arise at all.

Under these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent herein to forthwith refer the matter of the petitioners to the competent Civil Court for determination of proper compensation u/s 18 of the Act. No order as to costs.