-1- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 119 RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 ARAWALI POWER COMPANY LTD. …Appellant Versus RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocate, Mr. Sartaj Singh Sudan, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Pathak, Advocate (through V.C.) for appellant Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.07.2026 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Jhajjar (for short ‘Reference Court’) whereby the reference petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. As per pleadings, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) passed an award dated 07.07.2008 whereby compensation for SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) the acquisition of land @ ₹16,00,000/- per acre was determined. The respondent filed reference petition on 20.08.2019. The matter was referred to Court which vide award dated 17.07.2026 has enhanced compensation to ₹25,00,000/- per acre. As per appellant, application under Section 18 of 1894 Act was time barred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Award No.1 was passed on 07.07.2008 whereby market value of the land in question was determined. The respondent received compensation on the very same day, thus, there was constructive notice to the respondent. There was no need to issue notice under Section 12(2) of 1894 Act. The respondent was bound to file application under Section 18 of 1894 Act within six months from 07.07.2008. The limitation period prescribed under Section 18 of 1894 Act is sacrosanct and cannot be condoned. The only requirement is notice of award which may be actual or constructive. Receipt of compensation amounts to constructive as well as actual notice. The Reference Court has not returned findings on the question of limitation and mechanically held that the petition is not time barred. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that application under Section 18 of 1894 Act was filed within six months from the date of award, however, the Collector forwarded the matter to Court after the expiry of more than 10 years. The respondent cannot be deprived from higher amount of compensation on account of lapse on the part of the Collector. Question of determination of compensation qua land in question SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) has already been answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was duty of the appellant to prove that there was delay in filing reference. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 6. Supreme Court in Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572 has held that it is one of the duties of the Reference Court to examine whether application before Collector has been filed within prescribed period of limitation. The Court has held: - “22. The word “requires” in Section 18 of the Act implies compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference. The Collector is required to make a reference under Section 18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first condition is that there shall be a written application by a person interested who has not accepted the award. The second condition is as to the nature of the objections which may be taken, and the third condition is as to the time within which the application shall be made. The power of the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 is thus circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, and one condition is the condition regarding limitation to be found in the proviso. 23. The conditions laid down in Section 18 are ‘matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector's power of reference, as rightly observed by Chandavarkar, J., in re Land Acquisition Act. We are inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions, particularly the one regarding limitation, are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists. It must accordingly be held that the making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) proviso to Section 18 sub-section (2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector. 24. From these considerations, it follows that the court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of these principles, we would be extremely reluctant to accept the statement of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Karim case.” 7. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140, Supreme Court has held that actual or constructive knowledge of Award is necessary. Where award is passed in the absence of person interested, limitation period of six months cannot be counted from the date of award and it should be counted from the date of knowledge to the aggrieved party. Mere passing of Award and filing in the office of Collector is not sufficient. Award in terms of Section 12(2) must be communicated to the affected party because his rights are affected. The Court has held: - “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 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 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) 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 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 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) 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.” 8. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545, Supreme Court has held that limitation period of six months commences from the date of knowledge where landowner was not present at the time of passing Award. Collector has to establish that there was actual or constructive knowledge of award to the claimant. The court has held that actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The Court has held: - “30. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. 31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.” SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) 9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that respondent was having notice of award dated 07.07.2008. He received compensation on 07.07.2008, thus, for all intents and purposes the award came into his notice and he was bound to file reference, if any, within six months from 07.07.2008. The Reference Court has not examined date of filing application before the Collector and casually adjudicated the issue in favour of the respondent. The findings recorded by the Reference Court qua issue in question read as: - “15. Onus to prove these issues upon the respondents. The outcome of these issues have been dependent upon the adjudication on the aspect of issue Nos.1 & 2. This Tribunal has adjudicated under issue Nos.1 & 2 that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount to the tune of the rates granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide judgment Ex.P6. Further the right in favour of petitioners is continuous and recurring. Hence, the petitioners have locus- standi to file the present petition, the petition is not time barred and is also maintainable, hence, all these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” 10. The Reference Court has failed to find out date of filing application before the Collector though there was specific objection of the Collector that application has been filed after more than 10 years. There might be possibility of non-forwarding of reference to Court at the earliest, however, it seems strange that it was forwarded after more than 11 years. The possibility of manipulation of record cannot be ruled out. The Reference Court is bound to examine aforesaid aspect. It is a matter of public SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -9- RFA-1488-2026 (O&M) exchequer. The Court has no authority to condone delay once it is established that landowner was having constructive or actual notice of the award. It was desirable for the Reference Court to call for the original record of the Collector and thereafter determine the issue especially when there is gap of 11 years between the date of award and filing of reference. The matter needs to be re-examined, thus, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the appeal by way of remand on the question of limitation period. 11. In the backdrop, appeal is allowed by way of remand qua question of limitation period in filing application before the Collector under Section 18 of 1894 Act. 12. Both the parties at the first instance would appear before the Reference Court on 19.09.2026 and thereafter as directed by the said Court. The parties would be at liberty to lead evidence in support of their claim. The Reference Court is requested to pass fresh order expeditiously and preferably within 6 months from today. 13. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document