: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2006 Natwarlal Chhotalal Patel, Decd., Thru’ Savita N. Patel, Decd., Thru’ Mukesh C. Patel, Decd., Thru’ Brijesh M. Patel & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.J. Ahuja and Mr. S.H. Ahuja for the Applicants. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik, on 21st June, 2006 rejecting the application for a Reference made by the applicants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). : 2 : 3. The applicants were owners of land bearing Gat No.73 at Village Paregaon, Taluka Yevla, District Nasik. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 2nd December, 2000 for acquisition of the aforesaid property. The notification was published in the Gazette on 4th January, 2001. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5th October, 2001. An Award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12th July, 2002. Rs.4,89,100/- was the compensation payable to the applicants in respect of the land, a part of which was arable and the other part which was not cultivable. The applicants received payment under the Award and, thereafter, submitted an application for a Reference under the Act. That application was rejected on 21st June, 2006 and, hence, the present Civil Revision Application. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that each co-sharer of the land has not been served with the notice under Section 12(2) in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. The learned Advocate submits that applicant Nos.1(a), : 3 : 2(b) to 2(d) and 3 have not received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would commence only from the date when the compensation was paid to them. He further submits that the notice which allegedly has been served has been served on a female member of the family of the applicants and, therefore, the service of notice itself is bad in law, being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law. The learned Advocate also points out that the notices which were issued were in the name of dead persons or in the wrong names and, therefore, it could not be considered as legal and valid notice. It is further submitted that the applicants got notice of the Award only when the compensation was paid to them i.e. on 14th January, 2004. The application for a Reference has been filed on 24th February, 2004 and, therefore, according to the learned Advocate, there is no delay in presenting the Reference. 5. The learned AGP submits that all precautions have been taken under Section 12(2) of the Act to issue notices to the applicants indicating their : 4 : names and the property which was to be acquired and, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice was invalid. The learned AGP further submits that in any event, the applicants had constructive knowledge of the notice having been issued on 10th December, 2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act. 6. In the case of Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel & Ors. v/s. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 431, the Apex Court has concluded that the limitation prescribed under the later part of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act had to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge of declaration of the Award either actually or constructively. This principle would apply only in the cases where the applicant was not present or represented when the Award was made or when the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on him. Thus, it is trite that the notice must be served under Section 12(2) of the Act in accordance with the stipulations contained therein. It is only then that the period of limitation would start to run and it would be for a period of six : 5 : months from the date of knowledge of the declaration. 7. Similarly, in the case of Nathuram Posu Thakur v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 532, the learned Single Judge of this Court has advantageously referred to two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v/s. Satinder Singh, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 330. and in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v/s. Shivabai, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 710. The Supreme Court in those two judgments has held that the limitation prescribed for filing an application for Reference begins to run from the moment the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is received and statutory period of limitation does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of the notice in any particular form. 8. The learned AGP has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v/s. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer : 6 : & Anr., reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (V 48 C 281). In this judgment, the term “the date of the Collector’s Award” has been interpreted to be when the date of the Award was either communicated to or is known by the party whether actually or constructively. The learned AGP submits that since admittedly the notices had been received by the wife of the owner of the property, it would mean that the owner had constructive knowledge of the issuance of the above notice. 9. In the present case, a categoric statement is contained in this Civil Revision Application to the effect that the applicant was served through his wife and that he had no knowledge of the Award. Therefore, the question of having direct knowledge of the Award would not arise. Whether the applicant had constructive knowledge is debatable in the case at hand. In the case of Vithal Bhaskar Thakur v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 707, this Court has held that a notice served on the wife or the brother of the applicant was not valid. : 7 : 10. In my opinion, the impugned order dated 21st June, 2006 rejecting the Reference is bad in law. 11. A cursory glance on the judgments cited at the Bar would indicate that there must be either constructive or actual service of the notice. Since there is no document indicating physical service of the notice on the applicants concerned, the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik, will have to be set aside. 12. Rule made absolute. The Civil Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). However, the reference Court will frame an issue regarding limitation and decide the same while dealing with the Reference. 13. No orders as to costs. .......