1. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the present appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. ADMIT. Learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. The present First Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 r/w. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.228/1999 to 231/1999 and 233/1999 and 234/1999 with Land Acquisition Reference Case No.232/1999 dated 04.02.2011 by the Reference Court [learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, at Panchmahal] on the grounds mentioned in the memo of First Appeals inter alia that the lands of the appellants – original claimants situated at Village : Jantral, Taluka : Kalol, District : Panchmahal was acquired for the purpose of (Narmada Project) and, therefore, the aforesaid Reference Cases have been filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the award was declared by the Land Reference Officer on 30.11.1998 and neither the copy of the award nor the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been served upon the appellants which has laid to filing of the appeals. It is, therefore, specifically contended that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate and consider that the service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the intimation of the award is mandatory requirement which has not been followed. It is, therefore, contended that the Reference Court ought to have called upon the respondents to produce the proof of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act before passing the impugned order which has admittedly not done and it appears on the basis of the arguments which have been made which is produced on record at Annexure – C, page No.33 contending that the references have not been filed the period of limitation.
4. Learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji for the respondent No.2, on instructions, has placed on record the communication dated 13.02.2012 from the Land Acquisition Officer containing the details as in tabular form including the details about the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Admittedly, the notices are said to have been served to the claimants on 08.08.2000 in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.232/1999, 228/1999 and 234/1999. Be that as it may, the notices are served only on 08.08.2000 whereas the references have been filed admittedly on 05.06.1999. Even as per the written submissions made, in Reference Cases, the order has been passed without verification of the record. Therefore, in light of the clear position of law that the mandatory requirement has not been followed and sufficient opportunity cannot be said to be provided to the claimants, the impugned order of the Reference Court [learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, at Panchmahal] dated 04.02.2011 in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.228/1999 to 231/1999 and 233/1999 and 234/1999 with Land Acquisition Reference Case No.232/1999 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present first appeals deserve to be allowed and accordingly stand allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.228/1999 to 231/1999 and 233/1999 and 234/1999 with Land Acquisition Reference Case No.232/1999 dated 04.02.2011 by the Reference Court [learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, at Panchmahal] is hereby quashed and set aside and matters are required to be remanded back for fresh hearing.
7. It is directed that the said references are remanded back to the Reference Court for deciding afresh in accordance with law and on merits after providing an opportunity to the claimants to lead any evidence and the Reference Court shall decide on merits in accordance with law on the basis of evidence that may be produced before the trial Court. It goes without endavour shall be made to decide the same expeditiously preferably within six months. It is also required to be mentioned that the aspect of the limitation will not have much relevance in light of the facts and circumstances and in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3464, wherein it has been held that since the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of declaration of the award; the same was barred by limitation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no question of limitation when admittedly references have been filed much earlier. Direct service is permitted.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay