Land acquisition limitation and void transfer principles bar compensation claims and unsupported allotment of developed land.

Land acquisition reference limitation runs from the award or constructive notice, so a party that participated in the proceedings cannot rely on a later Section 12(2) notice to revive time under Section 18. A transfer prohibited by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is void from inception, and a transferee acquires no enforceable right, title, or compensable interest in the acquired land. A direction to consider allotment of 25% of developed land is unsustainable where it lacks statutory basis and arises from a void transaction. Compensation valuation must rest on reliable evidence and reasonable deductions for development, and a High Court assessment based on documentary material was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reference seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the award dated 30.11.1982 was within limitation in view of Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953; (ii) whether the alleged transfer in favour of the Society was void under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and whether the Society could claim compensation; (iii) whether the direction to consider allotment of 25% of developed land was sustainable; and (iv) whether the compensation determined by the High Court required interference.

Issue (i): whether the reference seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the award dated 30.11.1982 was within limitation in view of Sections 12(2) and 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

Analysis: The Society had participated in the acquisition proceedings, filed objections which were rejected, and was therefore chargeable with constructive notice of the award. The later notice issued under Section 12(2) could not revive limitation for an award that had already attained finality against the Society. Under Section 18, the reference had to be sought within the prescribed period from the award or notice, and the Society could not rely on the belated notice to overcome the time bar.

Conclusion: The reference in relation to the award dated 30.11.1982 was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged transfer in favour of the Society was void under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and whether the Society could claim compensation.

Analysis: The original khatedars belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and the statutory prohibition under Section 42 rendered a transfer in favour of a non-Scheduled Caste transferee void. The Society being a juristic person could not claim the benefit of a caste-based protective exception. A transaction void from inception confers no enforceable right, title, or interest, and a decree founded on such a transaction cannot validate the Society's claim to compensation. Since the right to compensation flows from legally protected interest in the land, the Society had no locus to receive compensation or apportionment.

Conclusion: The transaction was void, and the Society was not entitled to compensation.

Issue (iii): whether the direction to consider allotment of 25% of developed land was sustainable.

Analysis: The circular relied upon by the Division Bench was applicable to future acquisitions and to cases of surrender by khatedars, not to an acquisition where award had already been made and possession taken. The allotment direction had no statutory foundation and could not be sustained by reference to concessions or prior orders in other matters. A void transaction could not be used to generate a collateral claim to developed land.

Conclusion: The direction to consider allotment of 25% of developed land was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (iv): whether the compensation determined by the High Court required interference.

Analysis: The High Court preferred documentary evidence over oral assertions and assessed a reasonable market value after making necessary deductions for large-scale acquisition and development. The Reference Court's higher valuation was not supported by the better evidence on record. No perversity was shown in the High Court's assessment of compensation.

Conclusion: The compensation fixed by the High Court was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Society's claim to compensation failed, the enhanced-land direction was annulled, the compensation assessment was sustained, and the compensation was directed to be paid only to the khatedars or their legal representatives.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer hit by a statutory prohibition and void from inception confers no compensable interest on the transferee, and limitation for reference under land acquisition law runs from actual or constructive notice of the award, not from a belated or unnecessary notice.

---