Madhava Reddy, A.C.J.:-

(1) These writ appeals by the special deputy collector, land acquisition, kurnool, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother raghuvir, j. , allowing a batch of writ petitions and directing the respondents therein to cause a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act i of 1 94 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). In this batch of writ appeals the common question of law, that arises for consideration is whether the respondents herein are entitled to seek a reference beyond a period of two months from the date of the award,

(2) Srisailam hydro electric power project resulted in submersion of large extent of villages on either side of the river in kurnool and mahaboobnagar districts. These lands were notified for acquisition under section 4 (1) of the act. As a result of submersion, several hundred thousands of persons were uprooted from their villages. Compensation was determined by the special deputy collector, land acquisition under several awards. Invariably where the notices were issued, very few claimants entered their appearance and participated in the award proceedings. It is common ground that in respect of the lands which form the subject - matter of award no. 24 of 1977 which was made on 27th october, 1977 and other lands which formed the subject - matter of the writ appeals, none of the claimants appeared before the land acquisition officer and took part in the award enquiry. The award was, however, made and notices of the award are purported to have been issued under section 12 (2) of the act. No particular form of notice is prescribed under the act and the rules made thereunder. In the instant case, a statement was prepared in telugu language with a heading "notice under section 12 (2) of the act". In that notice award no. 24 of 1977 dated 27th october. 1977, was mentioned. It relates to yerravaram village in nandikotkur taluk of kurnool district. A statement in four columns was prepared, first colum giving the extent of the land, second column the total amounts determined, third column mentioning the names of the persons entitled to receive the amount and the fourth column left blank for obtaining the signature of the person concerned. It is also stated therein that the persons named in the statement are declared entitled to receive the amount specified against their names in respect of the land mentioned therein. Towards the end of the statement, there is a note that ''if within one week of the issuance of the notice, the persons concerned do not receive the amount the amount would be deposited under revenue deposits and it would not carry any interest". It is the case of the appellants that this constitutes sufficient notice of the making of the award as contemplated by section 12 (2) of the act. It is contended that in as much as the respondents - claimants have not filed any application s within two months of service of the said notice for making a reference to the court under proviso (b) to section 18 (2) , they are not entitled to seek a reference. It is also further contended that the claimants have received compensation without protest and consequently in view of the second proviso to section 31 (2) of the act, are not entitled to seek a reference. In the counter - affidavit it was averred that after the receipt of the said notice, the claimants did not ask for a copy of the award.

(3) Section 12 of the act reads as follows:

"12. (1) such award shall be filed in the collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, between the collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) the collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. " under the said provision, an obligation is cast upon the collector to give immediately notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives. He has to give notice not only of the award but also as to when it was made. After notice under sections 9 and 10 of the act, the collector is required to make an enquiry as to who, among the persons interested, are making the claim for compensation, the extent of the land, the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 (1) of the act and the persons among the rival claimants entitled to receive and the proportion in which the amount of compensation awarded is to be apportioned. Section 11 contemplates enquiry and award by the collector. In awarding compensation, the land acquisition officer is required to keep the several factors mentioned in sections 23 and 24 of the act in view. "

(4) The right to seek a reference is provided: under section 18 (2) of the act if a person is not present when the award was made, as per the amendment are made in the year 1959 under act xx of 1959, the person must seek reference within two months from the date of service of notice from the collector under section 12 (2). With respect to the compensation determined as payable to the persons interested, the persons who have put in a claim, have been given a right to seek a reference, in other words, the persons whose property is being compulsarily acquired for a public purpose, is entitled to seek a reference within the period stipulated under the act which period would begin to run from "the notice of the, award to such of the persons interested as are not present". It is, therefore, necessary to determine what the notice under section 12 (2) of the act should contain. When section 12 (2) requires the collector to give a notice of his award, it must necessarily mean, ia our view, the award itself. Mere intimation that in respect of certain lands, certain amount it payable to a certain person, does not constitute a notice of the award. The a ward contemplated by section 11 of the the act must be with reference to the date of the notifieation. It must contain the claim made by the claimant. If there is a dispute as to the measurement of the land acquired, there should be determination of the extent and if there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation payable for such land, it should be determined having regard to the factors mentioned in sections 23 and 24 of the act. If, in a particular case, the land has been taken possession of invoking the emergency provisions, the claimant would be entitled not merely to the value of the land as such but also interest from the date of taking possession. If there is a dispute as to the person or persons entitled to receive compensation the land acquisition officer is required to determine the person or persons entitled to receive compensation and if there are more than one person, he has to apportion the compensation among the persons who according to him, are entitled to receive compensation. It is left to the discretion of the collector under section 29 to apportion the amount among several claimants or refer the dispute as to apportionment to the court under section 30. None - the - less, those are the several matters which have to be recorded in the award and under sectcion 12 (2) of the act, the collector is required to give notice of such award. A mere statement as is referred to above on which the signatures of some of the claimants have been obtained, in our opinion, does not constitute notice of the award made by the collector, nor does it fulfil the requirements of section 12 (2) of the act.

(5) The learned government pleader mr. Innayya reddy, however, contended that the expression "notice of his award" envisaged by section 12 (2) does not mean that the award itself should be served on the claimants. According to him, it is enough if the extent of the land acquired, the total amount of compensation determined as payable to the claimants, the name of the claimant entitled to receive the same are furnished and that would constitute sufficient notice of the award and fulfil the requirement of section 12 (2). If within two months of receipt of such a notice an application is not made, then under the proviso (b) of section 18 (2) the claimant would be disentitled to seek a reference under the act. We are unable to agree with this contention. In order that a person may be entitled to seek a reference, he must know on what grounds his claim for a higher amount of compensation has been rejected. He must also know whether the collector has determined the compensation with reference to the date of the notification if there is a dispute as to the apportionment, on the grounds what his claim has been rejected or accepted only in part, as the case may be, should be made known to the claimant. Without knowing the basis on which a lesser amount is awarded, he would not be in a position to seek a reference. The law would not except the claimant to seek a reference in every case irrespective of whether the amount awarded is reasonable or not. The legislature in incorporating subsection (2) of section 12 could not have intended only the subtsance of the award to be intimated to the claimants. In our view, the expression "notice of the award" occurring in sub - section (2) of section 12 clearly postulates that the award as such should have been communicated to the claimants,

(6) The supreme court in state of punjab v. Qaisar jehan begum, "dealing with proviso (b) to sub - section (2) of section 18 of the act which lays down inter alia that reference may be sought "within six weeks from the date of the collector's award" which words are deleted by act xxii of 1959 in the application of the land acquisition act to the state of andhra pradesh, observed that any period of limitation should commence from the date of the knowledge of the award. As to what constitutes 'knowledge' the supreme court held thus :

"it seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in harish chandras case, is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award; these contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under section 12 (2) of the act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Having regard to the scheme of the act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the a ward."

On the facts of that case, the court held that merely because the claimant had filed a petition on a particular date, though it was with reference to the land acquired and the compeasation paid, he could not be attributed knowledge of the award if knowledge bf the award means knowledge of the essential particulars, the present notice under section 12 (2) does not even refer to the essential particulars, nor does it make a mention of the claim mads by the writ petitioners it does not refer to the date of taking possession nor the amount awarded towards the value of the land, or structures and the interest if any paid. It does not state what the decision of the land acquisition officer was with reference to the rival claims, if any, made in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the claimants were given notice of the award.

(7) In w. P. No. 460 of 1982 a bench of this court, to which one of us (k. Madhava reddy, acting chief justice) was a party, has held that when the notice under section 12 (2) of the act has not been issued as contemplated by the act, the claimants do not lose their right to seek a reference.

(8) Since the notice under section 12 (2) itself has not been issued as contemplated by the act and the statement prepared in respect of the land acquired referred to above, in our view, constitute no "notice of the award", the writ petitioners are not precluded from seeking a reference under section 18 (2) beyond the peried of two months from the date of the award.

(9) Another ground on which the appellant seeks to question the correctness of the order under appeal is that the writ petitioners had received the compensation without protest and in view of the second proviso to section 31 (2) they are disentitled to seek a reference. It is no doubt true that if a claimant has received the amount of compensation without protect, that, proviso precludes him from seeking a reference. Section 18 (1) entitles any person interested, who has not accepted the award, to seek a reference by making an application in writing to the collector. As already discussed above, when the notice of award itself has not been properly issued and served on the writ petitioners, the question of any of them accepting the award does not arise. The statement upon which their signatures have been obtained does not establish that they have received the amount without protest. In fact at the bottem of that statement what is stated in that they should receive the amount within one week of the issuance of the statement. There is nothing to show that they have thereafter received the amount without protest knowing that it was the amount awarded to them by way of compensation in respect of the land notified under section 4 (1) for acquisition. In the, absence of any such proof, the persons, who have not received notice as contenplated by section 12 (2) , cannot be deprived of their right to seek a reference under section 18 (2} of the act in fact the period of limitation prescribed under the second proviso to section 18 (2) cannot be deemed to have commenced to run and therefore they can seek a reference even now. Now that the learned tingle judge had directed a reference to be made on the footing that section 12 (2) notice has not been duly served, we do not think that we should once again give a similar direction.

(10) In view of the above discussion, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee rs. 150 in each. Writ appeal dismissed.