POSHETTY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                         POSHETTY AND ORS.                                     A
                               v.
                    STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                            AUGUST 28, 1996

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                             B

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

      Section 11, 12(2), 18(2)-Service of notice of award passed under
S.11-Whether a pre-condition under S.12(2)-Full Bench ofA.P. High Court        C
holding that service of award with notice is not necessary-On appeal held,
communication of the award is not a pre-condition-Hence the Full Bench
of the High Court was right is its interpretation of the provisions of S. 18
proviso r/w. sub-section (2) of S.12-Local amendment does not make any
material change to the said interpretation.
                                                                               D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1754 of
1992.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.90 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 13203 of 1985.
                                                                               E
        D. Parkash Reddy for Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants.

        G. Prakash for the Respondents.
                           -
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                               ~.


                                                                               F
       This appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
under Article 133 of the Constitution arises from its Full Bench judgment
dated February 21, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 12604 of 1987. In this appeal,
the only controversy is : whether service of notice of award passed under
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") along
with its enclosure, is a pre-condition under sub-section (2) of Section U G
of the Act. The Full Bench of the High Court by judgment dated Septem-
ber 12, 1990 in Writ Petition No. 13203 of 1985 and batch held that service
of the award with notice is not necessary. The learned Judges relying upon.
the omission of second clause in proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act held
that it is not necessary that copy of the award shoUld be served. It is H
                                     327
    328                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SU~P. 5 S.C.R.

A contended by Shri D.P. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, that
    sub-section (2) of Section 12 was interpreted by a Division Bench of
    Andhra Pradesh High Court in Special Deputy Commissioner (LA) Kur-
    nool DistTict v. C. Sai Reddy & Ors., AIR (1984) A.P. 24. The Full Bench,
    therefore, was not right in its construction. The controversy is no longer
    res integra. This Court in State of Punjab &A11r. v. Satinder Bir Singh, [1995]
B   3 SCC 330 has considered the scope of sub-section (2) of Section 12
    vis-a-vis proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 and held as under :

             "The question then is whether the notice under Section 12(2) is a
             valid notice. From a conjoint reading of Section 11 and 12, it is
c            clear that notice is only an intimation of making of the award
             requiring the owner or person interested to receive compensation
             awarded under Section 11. On receipt of the notice, if the person
             interested receives compensation without protest, obviously no
             reference need be made. The determination of compensation
             becomes final and binds the ·parties. When he receives the com-
D            pensation under protest as contemplated under Section 31 of the
             Act, the need to make the application for reference under Section
             18(1) would arise. At that juncture, it will be open to the person
             interested either to make an inspection of the award which was
             conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub-sec-
             tion (1) of Section 12, or seek a certified copy of the award from
E
             the Collector and the contents. Thereor1, he could mak,e necessary
             objection for the determination, inter alia, of compensation for the
             land. It is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details
             of the award including his consideration and its manner of deter-
             mination of the compensation as opined by the learned Judge of
F            the High Court. It is not incumbent that the person interested
             should immediately make the reference application on hi§ receiv-
             ing compensation under Section 31. In other other words; receipt
             of the amount and making the reference application are not
             simultaneous. The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by
             Section 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of com-
G            munication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules
             has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to operate from
             the moment the notice under Section 12(2) is received or as
             envisaged by Section 18(2)".


H          It is seen that sub-section (1) of Section 12 postulates that award
                           POSHETrYv.STATEOFAP.                             329

     made under Section 11 shall be filed in the Collector's Office and the same A
     shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the
     persons interested, whether or not they have respectively appeared before
     the Collector, of the true area of the land acquired, the value of the land
     acquired and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons
     interested. The Collector is, therefore, required to issue notice of his award
     to such of the persons interested who were either not present personally B
     or were present through representatives when the Collector made his
     award. Sub-section (2), therefore, requires him to give immediate notice of
     award to such interested persons and not simply the communication of the
     award as contended for. If such interested person who was present per-
     sonally or through the representative at the time of making of the award,
     is not required to be ~upplied the copy of the award, would it be intended
                                                                                    c
     that the award should ,~e served aiong with notice to a person who was not
     present. This question was considered in the above case and it was held
     that the service of notice is a ministerial act and the Act did not intend to
     supply the copy of the award. The limitation provided under proviso to
     sub-section (2) of Section 18 prescribes that if an applicant is present or D
     represented, has to make an application when he recdves the compensa-
     tion under protest within six weeks from the i.late of the Collector's award
     and where he was not present within six weeks of tht:: receipt of the notice
     from the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 12 or within 6 months
     from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
     In other words, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 prescribes the E
     limitation within which the application for reference under sub-section (1)
     of Section 18 is required to be made and the failure thereof puts an end
     of the right to the claimant to seek a reference under Section 18. This Court
     has already held that communication of the award is not a pre-condition
     and, therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court was right in its interpreta-
                                                                                    F
     tion of the provisions of Section 18, proviso read with sub-section (2) of
     Section 12. The local amendment does not, therefore, make any material
     change to the aforestated interpretation.

          The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, m the circumstances,
     without costs.
                                                                                  G
     G.N.                                                    Appeal dismissed.




,.